AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

SEP  2  1 1998 

DOCKET NUMBER:  97-03627 

COUNSEL:  NONE 

HEARING DESIRED:  YES 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

1.  His  Enlisted  Performance Report  (EPR) closing  30  September 
1995, reflect a start date of 11 February 1995. 

2. 
1 October 1994 through 10 February 1995 be filed in his record. 

The  optional  Letter  of  Evaluation  (LOE)  for  the  period 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

His rater was unable to evaluate his performance objectively and 
fairly.  The  evaluators  on  the  contested  EPR  did  not  include 
information  from  the  LOE  because  of  the  validated  Inspector 
General's  (IG) Report. 

In support of the appeal, applicant submits a personal statement, 
LOE, contested EPR, and other documentation. 

Applicant's complete submission is attached at Exhibit A. 

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 

The  applicant is  currently serving  in the _Regular Air  Force  in 
the grade of Master Sergeant. 

The  "from" date  on the  contested EPR  is  accurate  as portrayed. 
LOES  are  written  to  document  performance  during  periods  of 
supervision  too  short  to  render  a  performance  report. 
Information from the LOE may be  included on the next performance 
report, at EPR  rater's  option.  The decision not to include the 
information does not negate or invalidate the EPR. 

EPR profile since 1992 reflects the following: 

PERIOD ENDING 

OVERALL EVALUATION 

30  Sep 92 
30  Sep 93 

5 

report. removed by order 
of the Chief of Staff 

30 Sep 94 
30 Sep 95 
30 Sep 96 
30 Sep 97 

5 
5 
5 
5 

97-03076 

. 

1. 

AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

The  Chief,  Evaluation  Procedures  Section,  HQ  AFPC/DPPPEP, 
reviewed this application and states that the "from" date of the 
second or any subsequent EPR is the day immediately following the 
close out date of the previous EPR.  Therefore, the "from" date 
on  the  contested  EPR  is  correct  according  to  the  governing 
directive.  Prior to 1989, when LOEs were attached to performance 
reports  and  filed in the  record, the  "from" date  of  the  report 
was  still  determined  by  the  close  out  date  of  the  preceding 
report.  Changing  the  "from" date  on  the  contested  EPR  would 
cause  the  report  to  be  flawed  as  it  would  then  be  in  direct 
noncompliance with the governing directive. 

Applicant alleges his evaluators declined to include information 
from the LOE as a  form of reprisal stemming from "validated"  IG 
findings.  However, we do not  find evidence this allegation has 
merit.  Many  of  the  allegations  presented  to  the  IG were  only 
partially  substantiated, and none  of  them were directed towards 
the  evaluators  who  signed  the  contested  EPR.  The  IG  findings 
were not forwarded to the applicant until 1 3   October 1995, and no 
documentation was provided to show the IG report was presented to 
applicant's  unit  sooner.  Since  the  IG  report was  prepared  27 
September  1995,  only  three  days  prior  to  the  signing  of  the 
contested  EPR,  they  find  it  unlikely  the  findings  had  any 
influence on the preparation of that EPR closing out 30 September 
1996.  A  finding in the applicant's  favor would cause violations 
Therefore,  they  recommend  denial  of 
of  regulatory  guidance. 
applicant's  request. 

- 

A  complete  copy  of  the  Air  Force  evaluation  is  attached  at 
Exhibit C. 

The  Chief,  Inquiries/AFBCMR  Section,  Enlisted  Promotion  & 
Military  Testing  Branch,  HQ  AFPC/DPPPWB,  reviewed  this 
application and states that if the AFBCMR were to direct that the 
LOE report be changed to a Change of Reporting Official  (CRO) EPR 
then,  the  first  time  the  report  will  be  considered  in  the 
promotion  process  is  cycle  9638  to  senior  master  sergeant 
(promotions effective Apr  96 -  Mar  97).  There are no provisions 
to include the LOE in the Selection Folder. 

A complete copy of their evaluation is attached at Exhibit D. 

2 

97-03076 

The Chief, BCMR and SSB Section, Directorate of Personnel Program 
Management, HQ AFPC/DPPPAB, reviewed this application and states 
the  applicant  did  not  file  an  appeal  under  AFI  36-2401, 
Correcting Officer and Enlisted Evaluation Reports.  They did not 
return  the  application because  the  applicant  failed  to  provide 
the  required  evaluator  support. 
The  applicant's  request  is 
contrary  to  the  guidance contained  in  the  governing  directive, 
AFI  36-2403.  They  concur with  the  opinion  from HQ AFPC/DPPPEP 
and HQ AFPC/DPPPWB and have nothing  further to add.  Therefore, 
they recommend denial of applicant's  request. 

A complete copy of their evaluation is attached at Exhibit E. 

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

The applicant reviewed the advisory opinions and states that the 
time  that  lapsed between  the  EPR  and  the  validation  of  the  IG 
Report  was  more  than  35  days. 
This  validation  affected  his 
senior  leaders  with  the  Civil  Engineering  Squadron,  and  it 
drastically  influenced his  rating chain's  objectivity to  assess 
his  performance  fairly  and  impartially.  This  validation drove 
the omission of  significant achievements, contained in the LOE, 
from inclusion in the contested EPR. 

A  complete  copy  of  applicant's  response,  with  attachment,  is 
attached at Exhibit G. 

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT: 

The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by existing 

1. 
law or regulations. 

2.  The application was timely filed. 

3.  Insufficient  relevant  evidence  has  been  presented  to 
demonstrate  the  existence  of  probable  error  or  injustice. 
Applicant  contends  the  EPR  closing  30  September  1995,  is 
inaccurate  due  to  the  evaluators  failure  to  document  his 
performance as the NCOIC, Receiving Element.  After reviewing the 
evidence of  record, we  are not persuaded that the contested EPR 
was rendered in error or is unjust.  In this respect we note the 
evaluators  rendered  the  highest  rating  possible  and  submitted 
performances/accomplishments  that 
comments  on  applicant's 
completely  filled  the  allowable  space  provided. 
Applicant 
believes that the evaluators declined to include the information 
from the contested LOE as a form of reprisal due to the Inspector 
General  (IG) findings.  However,  we  do  not  find  evidence  this 
allegation has merit.  To the contrary,. many  of the allegations 
presented to the IG were only partially substantiated and none of 
them  were  directed  towards  the  evaluators  of  the  contested 

3 

97-03076 

report.  In  view  of  the  above  findings  and  in  the  absence  of 
evidence  to  the  contrary,  we  find  no  basis  upon  which  to 
recommend favorable action on this application. 

4.  The applicant's case is adequately documented and it has"not 
been  shown  that  a  personal  appearance  with  or  without  counsel 
will  materially  add  to  our  understanding  of  the  issue(s) 
involved.  Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorably 
considered. 

THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: 

The  applicant  be  notified  that  the  evidence  presented  did  not 
demonstrate  the  existence  of  probable  material  error  or 
injustice;  that  the  application  was  denied  without  a  personal 
appearance; and  that  the  application  will  only  be  reconsidered 
upon  the  submission  of  newly  discovered  relevant  evidence  not 
considered with this application. 

The following members of the Board considered this application in 
Executive Session on 7 July 1998, under the provisions of AFI 36- 
2603: 

Mrs. Barbara A. Westgate, Panel Chair 
Mr. Frederick R. Beaman 111, Member 
Mr. Steve Shaw, Member 

The following 

documentary evidence was considered: 

Exhibit A. 
Exhibit B .  
Exhibit C. 
Exhibit D. 
Exhibit E. 
Exhibit F. 
Exhibit D. 

DD Form 149, dated 1 October 1997, w/atchs. 
Applicant's Master Personnel Records. 
Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPPEP, dated 5 February 1998. 
Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPPWB, dated 18 February 1998. 
Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPPAB, dated-25 February 1998. 
Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 9 March 1998. 
Applicant's  Response, dated 18 March 1998. 

4L 
ARBARA A. &l$f-- 

WESTGA 

Panel Chair 

4 '

 

DEPARTMENT’ O F  THE AIR  FORCE 

HEADQUARTERS  AIR  FORCE  PERSONNEL C E N T E R  

RANDOLPH  AIR  FORCE  BASE TEXAS 

SAF’MBR 

- 
S  FEB  1993 

- 

550 C Street West Ste 07 
Randolph AFB TX  78150-4709 

MEMORANDUM FOR  DPPPAB 

FROM:  HQ AFPCDPPPEP 

SUBJ:  Application for Correction of Military Records, 

REQUESTED ACTION:  Applicant requests the Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) closing 
out 30 Sep 95 be corrected to reflect a start date of 1 1 Feb 95, and an optional Letter of Evalua- 
tion (LOE) for the period 1 Oct 94 - 10 Feb 95 be filed in his record. 
BASIS FOR REQUEST:  Applicant bases this request on the claim his rater had an “inability to 
evaluate performance objectively and fairly.”  He asserts the “fromyy date of the contested EPR is 
incorrect, and further alleges the evaluators on his report failed to include idormation fiom the 
LOE “because of PSI validated Inspector’s General Report.” 

BACKGROUND:  The governing directive covering the period of the contested EPR and the 
disposition of LOEs is AFI 36-2403, dated 15 Jul94.  The rules for determining the “fkom” date 
of an EPR have not been changed for decades, if ever, as verified by the 15 Jul76 version of 
AFR 39-62, forerunner of the current AFI. During the 1988 Officer and Enlisted Evaluation 
System (OESEES) Review, the value of mandatory LOEs and the practice of filing them in the 
record was thoroughly discussed.  It was determined there was no added value to filing them in 
the record since subsequent evaluators could, at their option, include infomation fiom the LOE 
in the next performance report,  This change was implemented in 1989 and remains in practice 
today. 

FACTS:  The “from” date on the contested EPR is accurate as portrayed.  LOEs are Written to 
document performance during periods of supervision too short to render a performance report. 
Information from the LOE may be included on the next performance report, at EPR rater’s op- 
tion; the decision not to include the information does not negate or invalidate the EPR. 

DISCUSSION: Air Force policy is that LOEs are not filed in a member’s record.  There is no 
compelling evidence presented which supports an exception to this policy.  Personal wishes of 

9703627 
. .  . . . . . . . . . . 

the ratee are not a factor in determining the contents of an EPR or the record; these decisions are 
governed by the d e s  of regulatory guidance.  This issue is without merit. 

The “from” date of the second or any subsequent EPR is the day immediately following the 
close-out date of the previous EPR.  Therefore, the “from” date on the contested EPR is correct 
according to the governing directive. Prior to 1989, when LOEs were attached to performance 
reports and filed in the record, the %om”  date of the report was still determined by the close-out 
date of the preceding report.  Changing the ‘‘fiorn” date on the contested EPR would cause the 
report to be “flawed” as it would then be in direct noncomplimce with the governing directive; 
as a result, this issue is without merit. 

Applicant alleges his evaluators declined to include information from the LOE as a form of repri- 
sal stemming from “validated” Inspector General (IC) findings.  However, we do not find  evi- 
dence this allegation has merit.  In fact, many of the allegations presented to the IG were only 
partially substantiated, and none of them were directed towards the evaluators who signed the 
contested EPR  The IG fmdings were not forwarded to the applicant until 13 Oct 95, and no 
documentation was provided to show the IG report was presented to applicant’s unit sooner. 
Further, since the IG report was prepared 27 Sep, only 3 days prior to the signing of the contested 
EPR, we find it unlikely the findings had any influence on the preparation of that EPR. 

While we note applicant submitted a substantial number of documents, the majority of those 
documents and related allegations pertain to a subsequent EPR not addxessed in his letter as be- 
ing under appeal.  As they are not related to this appeal case, we will not address the allegations 
or documents pertaining to that EPR (closing out 30 Sep 96). 

RECOMMENDATION:  In conclusion, a thorough review of his documentation and the gov- 
erning directive does not reveal a violation of regulatory provisions.  In fact, a finding in the ap- 
plicant’s favor would cause violations of regulatory guidance.  Therefore, we cannot support ap- 
proval; strongly recommend denial. 

9703627 
- . - - - - . 

DEPARTMENT  OF THE A I R   FORCE 

HEADQUARTERS AIR  FORCE PERSONNEL CENTER 

RANDOLPH AIR  FORCE BASE TEXAS 

1 8   FEB 199t 

MEMORANDUM FOR  AFPCLDPPPAB 

AFBCMR 

FROM:  HQ AFPC/DPPPW 

for Correction of Military Records 

Requested Action.  The applicant is requesting the Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) closing 
Evaluation FOE) for the period 1 Oct 94 - 10 Feb 95 be filed in his record.  We will address the 
30 Sep 95 be corrected to reflect a start date of 11 Feb 95 vice 1 Oct 94, and an optional Letter of 

supplemental promotion consideration issue should the request be approved. 

Reason for Request.  Applicant believes the above request should be granted since his 
accomplishments fiom his LOE, which depicted significant achievements regarding his 
leadership and managerial abilities, were not included in the EPR closing 30 Sep 95. 
- Facts.  See AFPC/DPPPEP Ltr, 5 Feb 98 and AFPC/DPPPAB Ltr. 
Discussion.  If the AFBCMR were to direct that the LOE report  be changed to a Change of 
Reporting Official (CRO) EPR then, the first time the report will be considered in the promotion 
process is cycle 96E8 to senior master sergeant  (promotions effective Apr 96 - Mar 97).  There 
are no provisions to include the LOE in the HQ USAF Selection Folder. 
Recommendation.  We defer to the recommendation of AFPCDPPPEP and AFPCDPPPAB. 

Chief, InquiriedAFBCMR Section 
Enlisted Promotion & Mil Testing Br 

9703627 
. .  . . . . . . . . 

DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE 

HEADQUARTERS AIR FORCE MILITARY PERSONNEL CENTER 

RANDOLPH AIR FORCE BASE TEXAS 

2 5  FEB  1998 

MEMORANDUM FOR AFBCMR 
FROM: HQ AFPCDPPPAB 

550 C Street West, Suite 8 
Randolph AFB TX  78150-4710 

. 

Requested Action.  The applicant requests the addition of an AF Form 77, Supplemental 

Evaluation Sheet, inclusive dates 1 Oct 94 - 10 Feb 95, to his official Air Force records.  He also 
requests the board adjust the inclusive dates on the enlisted performance report (EPR) that closed 
out 30 Sep 95. 

Basis for Request.  The applicant contends his rater was unable to evaluate his performance 
objectively and fairly; and the evaluators on the contested EPR did not include information from 
the LOE because of the validated Inspector General's (IG) Report. 

Recommendation. Deny. 

Facts and Comments. 

a.  The application is fiely. The applicant did not file an appeal under AFI 

36-240 1, Correcting Officer and Enlisted Evaluation Reports.  We did not return the 
application because the applicant failed to provide the required evaluator support. 

b.  AFI 36-2403, The Enlisted Evaluation System, 15 Jul94, is the governing 

directive. 

c.  In support of his appeal, the applicant includes a personal brief; copy of the 
LOE; copy of the contested EPR; copies of correspondence between him and his congressman; 
copies of correspondence between him and Air Force officials outside his rating chain; copies of 
the applicant's complaint to the IG and their findings; and extraneous material. 

' 

d.  We concur with the advisory opinions from HQ AFPCLDPPPEP and HQ 

AFPC/DPPPwB, and have nothing further to add. 

9703627 
- . . . .. . . . 

Summary.  The applicant’s request is contrary to the guidance contained in the governing 

directive, MI 36-2403, Therefore, our recommendation of denial is appropriate. 

$+C+ 

OYCE E. HOG 
Cfiief, BCMR and SSB Section 
Dir of Personnel Program Mgt 

9703 27