AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

IN THE MATTER OF: 

DOCKET NUMBER:  98-00369 

COUNSEL:  None 
HEARING DESIRED:  NO 

n ~ r ,  1 1  19% 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

The  Enlisted  Performance  Report  (EPR) rendered  for  the  period 
16 Feb 95 through 16 Aug 95 be declared void and removed from his 
records. 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

The  comments  the  rater  used  in  the  contested  report  are  not 
consistent  with  the  legal  review  findings  of  the  Report  of 
Inquiry  (ROI), feedback sessions, and his past duty performance. 

In  support  of  his  appeal,  the  applicant  provided  a  personal 
brief,  a  copy  of  the  Legal  Review  of  the  ROI,  a  copy  of  his 
rebuttal  to  the  referral  EPR,  a  summary  of  his  DD  Form  149 
appeal,  and  a  copy  of  the  contested  referral  EPR  with  the 
notification memorandum. 

Applicant’s complete submission is attached at Exhibit A. 

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 

The  applicant’s  Total  Active  Federal  Military  Service  Date 
(TAFMSD) is  29 Sep  78.  He  is currently serving in  the  Regular 
Air Force in the grade of technical sergeant, effective, and with 
a date of rank  (DOR) of 1 Sep 92. 

Applicant’s Airman Performance Report  (APR) and EPR profile since 
1985 follows: 

AFBCMR 98-00369 

PERIOD ENDING 

OVERALL EVALUATION 

31 Oct 85 
31 Oct 86 
30 Mar 87 
5 Oct 87 
5 Oct 88 
5 Oct 89 
4 Mar 90 
4 Mar 91 
29 Nov 91 
29 Nov 92 
1 Sep 93 
15 Sep 94 
15 Sep 95 
*  16 Aug  95 
15 Apr  96 
15 Dec 96 
15 Dec 97 

9 
9 
9 
9 
9 
9 
5  (New rating system) 
5 
5 
5 
5 
5 
5 
2  (Referral Rpt) 
5 
5 
5 

*  Contested report. 

Applicant  filed  a  similar  appeal  under  AFI  36-2401,  Correcting 
Officer and Enlisted Evaluation Reports, which was denied by  the 
Evaluation Report Appeal Board on 22 Jul 97. 

The  applicant  has  a projected  retirement date of  1 Oct  98 based 
on high year of tenure  (HYT). 

AIR  FORCE EVALUATION: 

The  Chief,  Inquiries/AFBCMR  Section, AFPC/DPPPWB,  reviewed this 
application  and  indicated  that  the  contested  report  would 
normally  have  been  eligible  for promotion  consideration for  the 
96E7 cycle to master  sergeant  (promotions effective Aug  96 -  Jul 
97).  However, because it was a referral report, it automatically 
rendered  him  ineligible  for  promotion  consideration  for  this 
cycle  in accordance  with  Headquarters AFMPC/DPMA  Jun  95 message 
(Implementation of  changes  to  the  Enlisted  Evaluation  System). 
In addition, the record reflects that the applicant was relieved 
from  recruiting  duty  in Aug  95  for  reasons within  his  control. 
The contested  report was as a result of this relief action.  An 
individual who  has  lost his/her Air  Force  specialty code  (AFSC) 
or Special Duty Identifier  (SDI) in the case of a Recruiter, for 
reasons  within  their  control,  are  ineligible  for  promotion  and 
remain ineligible  until  such time as  they are awarded a  Primary 
AFSC  commensurate with their grade  (Reference AFI  36-2502, Table 
1.1,  Rule V.  Promotion  Eligibility  Status  (PES)  Code  “(2” 
identifies this ineligible condition).  Promotion history records 
indicate the PES Code “Q“ was updated effective Nov  95 to reflect 
his ineligibility for promotion.  Consequently, he was indigible 

2 

AFBCMR 98-00369 

for promotion  consideration for the 9637 cycle based on both the 
referral EPR and the PES Code ” Q . ”  
Concerning  the  next  promotion  cycle,  97E7  (promotions effective 
Aug  97 -  Jul  98),  the  applicant  was  erroneously  considered and 
He  had  received  another  EPR  closing  15 Apr  96 
not  selected. 
which was  rated a “5“  rating.  Consequently, the EPR  was not an 
ineligibility  factor  for the  97E7 cycle  as  it  had  been  for the 
previous cycle.  However, in Apr 96, the PES Code was erroneously 
It  was 
updated  from  “Q”  (ineligible)  to  ”X”  (eligible). 
erroneous  because  he,  at  that  time,  only  possessed  a  “1”  skill 
level  (he now has a 3-skill level PAFSC).  A 7-skill level PAFSC 
is  required  for  promotion  consideration  to  the  grade  of master 
sergeant. 
As  a  result  of  this  erroneous  update,  he  was 
considered  for  promotion  to  master  sergeant  and  not  selected. 
His  total  score  for  the  97E7  cycle  was  291.03  and  the  score 
required for selection was 346.22. 
DPPPWB further indicates that, because of the erroneous update of 
the  PES  Code  in  Apr  96  to  reflect  that  the  applicant  was 
eligible,  he  tested  for promotion  for  the  next  cycle,  98E7, on 
27 Jan 98.  Selections for the 98E7 cycle will be done in May  98 
and  are  effective  Aug  98 -  J u l   99.  He  was  administered  the 
Promotion  Fitness  Examination  (PFE)  only  (Specialty Knowledge 
Test  (SKT) exempt)  because  he  is  retraining into  the  Readiness 
career  field  (AFSC 3E9X1).  After  a review of the circumstances 
of  the  applicant‘s  case,  it  has  been  determined  that  he  is 
ineligible for promotion to master  sergeant based on the loss of 
his  recruiting  SDI  for  reasons within  his  control and  the  fact 
that  he  does  not  possess  a  7-skill level  PAFSC  in his  new AFSC 
required for consideration.  His promotion file has been updated 
to reflect that he is not eligible for consideration for the next 
cycle, 98E7.  While it is regrettable that an erroneous update of 
the  PES  Code  from  “Q”  to  “X”  in  Apr  96  caused  him  to  be 
erroneously  considered  for  the  97E7  cycle  and  to  test  for  the 
98E7  cycle  on  27 Jan  98,  the  fact  remains  that  he  was  and  is 
ineligible  for promotion  consideration to master  sergeant based 
on  the  circumstances  described  above.  Voiding  the  report  in 
question  would  not  entitle  the  applicant  to  supplemental 
promotion consideration for any previous cycles. 

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

The  Chief,  BCMR  &  SSB  Section, AFPC/DPPPAB,  also  reviewed  this 
application  and  indicated  that  Air  Force  policy  is  that  an 
evaluation report is accurate as written when it becomes a matter 
of record and to effectively challenge an EPR, it is necessary to 
hear  from  all  the  members  of  the  rating  chain-not  only  for 
support, but for clarification/explanation.  The applicant failed 
to provide  any  information/support from the rating chain on  the 
In  the  absence  of  information  from 
report  in  question. 
evaluators,  official  substantiation  of  error  or  injustice  from 
the Inspector General  (IG) or Social Actions is appropriate, but 

3 

AFBCMR 98-00369 

not provided in this case.  Therefore, DPPPAB believes the report 
to be an accurate assessment of the applicant’s duty performance 
during the period in question.  While the applicant is attempting 
to  relate  the  ratings  on  the  EPR  to  the  markings  on  the 
performance feedback worksheet  (PFW), although he did not provide 
the  PFW,  it  is  a  moot  point  because  it  is  an  inappropriate 
comparison  and  is  inconsistent  with  the  Enlisted  Evaluation 
System  ( E E S ) .   The PFW  relates only to duty performance and not 
an absolute indicator of potential for serving in a higher grade. 
The  purpose  of  the  feedback  session  is  to  give  the  ratee 
direction  and  to define  performance  expectations  for the  rating 
period  in  question. 
Feedback  also  provides  the  ratee  the 
opportunity to improve performance, if necessary, before the EPR 
is written.  The rater who prepares the PFW may use the PFW as an 
aid in preparing  the EPR  and, if applicable, subsequent feedback 
sessions.  The PFW acts as a scale on where the ratee stands in 
relating  to the  duty  performance  expectations of  the  rater.  A 
PFW with all items marked  “needs little or no improvement” means 
the  ratee  is  meeting  the  rater’s  standards. 
It  does  not 
Also,  a ratee who performs current 
guarantee  a  firewalled  E P R .  
duties  in  an  exceptional  manner  could  demonstrate  only  limited 
potential for the next higher grade.  Or, a ratee who still needs 
to improve in the performance of current duties could demonstrate 
great potential for the next higher grade.  There is not a direct 
correlation between the markings on the PFW and the ratings on an 
EPR.  Furthermore,  every  exceptional performer  does  not  possess 
outstanding promotion potential and evaluators need to make that 
clear on the E P R s   they write. 
DPPPAB  agrees  that  the  contested  EPR  is  inconsistent  with 
applicant’s previous performance; however, it is not  feasible to 
compare one report covering a certain period of time with another 
report covering  a different period  of time which does not  allow 
for  changes  in  the  ratee’s performance  and  does  not  follow the 
intent  of  the  governing  regulation,  A F I   36-2403.  The  EPR  was 
designed to provide a  rating for a specific period of time based 
on  the  performance  noted  during  that  period,  not  based  on 
previous performance. 

DPPPAB  points  out  that  the  contested  referral  EPR,  rendered  to 
the  applicant  as  a  result  of  substantiated  unethical  behavior, 
inadvertently  caused  those  under his  direction to  “follow  suit” 
and falsify official government records.  They agree with  DPPPWB 
that  even  if  the  Board  directs  removal  of  the  referral  report, 
the  applicant  would  not  become  eligible  for  promotion 
consideration.  He was  removed  from the  recruiting career  field 
for  reasons  within  his  control  and  subsequently  retrained.  He 
was expected to maintain  standards of conduct and responsibility 
at least as stringent as the rest of the noncommissioned officer 
(NCO) corps. 
He  used  poor  judgment  and  made  false  official 
statements,  a point  not  in contention, and  this impropriety was 
appropriately reflected in the report in question.  To remove the 
contested  report  from applicant’s record would  be  unfair  to all 
the  other  NCOs  who  exercised  integrity  and  honest-ly  and 

4 

AFBCMR 98-00369 

effectively  performed  their  duties. 
DPPPAB  concludes  that 
removal of the contested report would make the applicant's  record 
inaccurate and they recommend denial. 

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

APPLICANT'-S REVIEW OF AIR  FORCE EVALUATION: 

Copies  of the Air  Force evaluations were  forwarded to applicant 
on  20 Apr  98  for  review  and  response.  As  of  this  date,  no 
response has been received by this office. 

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.  After 
a  thorough  review  of  the  evidence  of  record  and  applicant's 
submission, we are not persuaded that the contested report should 
be  declared  void  and removed  from his  records.  His contentions 
are  duly  noted;  however,  we  do  not  find  these  uncorroborated 
assertions,  in  and  by  themselves,  sufficiently  persuasive  to 
override  the  rationale  provided  by  the  Air  Force. 
After 
reviewing  the ROI, we note that while  no evidence of  forgery or 
perjury  was  found,  the  Assistant  Staff  Judge  Advocate  ( S J A )  
recommended  the  investigating  officer's  (IO'S)  recommendation 
regarding military justice actions be disregarded and adopted the 
IO'S  recommendation  regarding an LOR based  on the  fact that the 
applicant  engaged  in  a  pattern  of  conduct  designed  to 
artificially improve the statistics of his flight.  The IO found 
that  the  applicant  violated  the  procedural  rules  of  the 
recruiting  service in so doing and  recommended the applicant be 
relieved of his duties as Flight Supervisor and retrained into a 
different  career  field  in  which  the  Assistant  Staff  Judge 
Advocate  (SJA) concurred.  We  believe  that  the  applicant  used 
poor  judgment  and  unethical  behavior  as  an Air  Force  recruiter 
and this impropriety was appropriately reflected on the contested 
report. 
In  view  of  the  foregoing,  we  agree  with  the 
recommendations  of  the  Air  Force  and  adopt  the  rationale 
expressed  as  the  basis  for  our  decision  that  the  applicant  has 
failed to sustain his burden that he has suffered either an error 
or  an  injustice. 
Therefore,  we  find  no  compelling  basis  to 
recommend granting the relief sought. 

5 

AFBCMR 98-00369 

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  17 September  1998, under  the provisions  of 
Air Force Instruction 36-2603: 

Ms. Martha Maust, Panel Chair 
Ms. Ann L. Heidig, Member 
Mr. Loren S. Perlstein, Member 
Mrs. Joyce Earley, Examiner  (without vote) 

The following documentary evidence was considered: 

Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 5 Feb 98, w/atchs. 
Exhibit B.  Applicant’s Master Personnel Records. 
Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPWB, dated 25 Mar 98, w/atchs. 
Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPAB, dated 9 Apr 98, w/atchs. 
Exhibit E.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 20 Apr  98. 

MARTHA  MA US^ 
Panel Chair 

6 

DEPARTMENT  OF  THE A I R   FORCE 

HEADQUARTERS  AIR  FORCE  PERSONNEL  CENTER 

RANDOLPH AIR  FORCE  BASE TEXAS 

MEMORANDUM FOR AFPCDPPPAB 

AFBCMR 
INTURN 

SUBJECT:  Application for Correction of Military Records -& 

- 

FROM:  HQ AFPCDPPPWB 

550 C Street West, Ste 09 
Randolph AFB TX  78150-471 1 

Requested Action.  The applicant is requesting the AFBCMR void his Enlisted 

Performance Report (EPR) closing  16 Aug 95.  We will address the supplemental promotion 
consideration issue should the request be approved. 

Reason for Request.  The applicant states the comments used are not consistent with legal 
review findings (report of inquiry) and ratings are not consistent with feedback sessions and past 
duty performance. 

Facts.  See Hq AFPCDPPPAB Memorandum.  The applicant has a projected retirement 
date of 1 Oct 98 based on High Year Tenure (HYT).  A member serving in the grade of TSgt can 
serve 20 years active service. 

Discussion. 

a.  The contested EPR would normally have been eligible for promotion consideration for 

the 96E7 cycle to MSgt (promotions effective Aug 96 - Jul97).  However, because it was 
referral, it automatically rendered him ineligible for promotion consideration for this cycle in 
accordance with Hq AFMPC/DPMA 0916022 Jun 95 Msg (Implementation of changes to the 
Enlisted Evaluation System).  In addition, the record reflects he was relieved from recruiting duty 
in Aug 95 for reasons within his control.  The contested EPR was as a result of this relief action. 
An individual who has lost h.i$her  Air Force Specialty Code (AFSC) or Special Duty Identifier 
(SDI) in the case of a Recruiter, for reasons within their control, are ineligible for promotion and 
remain ineligible until such time as they are awarded a Primary AFSC commensurate with their 
grade (Reference AFI 36-2502, Table I .l, Rule V.  Promotion Eligibility Status (PES) Code “Q” 
identifies this ineligible condition.  Promotion history records indicate the PES Code “Q” was 
updated effective Nov 95 to reflect his ineligibility for promotion.  Consequently, he was 
ineligible for promotion consideration for the 96B7 cycle based on both the referral EPR and the 
PES Code “Q”. 

9800369 
.. . . .. . . . . . 

b.  Concerning the next promotion cycle, 97E7 (promotions effective Aug 97 - Jul98)-the 
applicant was erroneously considered and not selected. He had received another EPR closing 15 
Apr 96 which was rated a “5”.  Consequently, the EPR was not an ineligibility factor for the 
97E7 cycle as it had been for the previous cycle.  However, in Apr 96, the PES Code was 
erroneously updated from “Q” (ineligible) to “X” (eligible).  It was erroneous because he, at that 
time, only possessed a “1” Skill Level (he now has a 3-Ski11 Level PAFSC).  A 7-Skill Level 
PAFSC is required for promotion consideration to MSgt.  As a result of this erroneous update, he 
was considered for promotion to MSgt and not selected. His total score for the 97E7 cycle was 
291.03 and the score required for selection was 346.22. 

c.  Because of the erroneous update of the PES Code in Apr 96 to reflect that he was 

eligible, he tested for promotion for the next cycle, 98E7, on 27 Jan 98.  Selections for the 98E7 
cycle will be done in May 98 and are effective Aug 98 - Jul99.  He was administered the 
Promotion Fitness Examination (PFE) only (Specialty Knowledge Test (SKT) exempt) because 
he is retraining into the Readiness career field (AFSC 3E9X1).  After a review of the 
circumstances of the applicant’s case it has been determined he is ineligible for promotion to 
MSgt based on the loss of his recruiting SDI for reasons within his control and the fact that he 
does not possess a 7 -Skill Level PAFSC in his new AFSC required for consideration . His 
promotion file has been updated to reflect that he is not eligible for consideration for the next 
cycle, 98E7.  While it is regrettable that an erroneous update of the PES Code from “ Q  to “ X  
in Apr 96 caused him to be erroneously considered for the 97E7 cycle and to test for the 98E7 
cycle on 27 Jan 98, the fact remains that he was and is ineligible for promotion consideration to 
MSgt based on the circumstances described above.  Voiding the EPR closing 16 Aug 95 would 
not entitle the applicant to supplemental promotion consideration for any previous cycles. 

Recommendation.  We defer to the recommendation of Hq AFPC/DPPPAB. 

+- 

.MERRITT 

TON 
Chief, InquiriedAFBCMR Section 
Enlisted Promotion Branch 

Attachments 
1. Extract cy Hq AFMPUDPMA 
0916022 Jun 95 Msg 
2. Extract cy AFI 36-2502 

9800369 
. . - . .. . -. . . . 

UNCLASSIFIED 

01  11  0916022  JUN  9 5   RR  RR  UlTUu 
NO 

DPMAE 

HQ AFMPC RANDOLPH AF'B  TX//DPMA// 
AIG 8 106//CC/DPM/DPMQ/DPMP/CCC// 
AIG 10607//MSM// 

ALPERSCOM//DP/MP/IG/CCC// 
AIG 9326 

INFO HQ USAF WASHINGTON DC//DPXEP// 
XMT HQ AFMPC RANDOLPH AFB  TX 

A//225/95  B/197/95 
PLEASE ENSURE  WIDEST POSSIBLE DISSEMINATION 

IMPLEMENTATION OF CHANGES TO THE ENLISTED EVALUATION SYSTEM 

CSAF  MSG 0816262 MAY 9 5   AND HQ USAF/DP MSG 2317002 MAY 9 5  

SUBJ: 
(EES 1 
REF: 
1. THIS MESSAGE IMPLEMENTS CHANGES TO THE ENLISTED EVALUATION SYSTEM. 
SOME OF THE CHANGES BEING IMPLEMENTED WILL TAKE  EFFECT IMMEDIATELY, 
OTHERS WILL REQUIRE ADDITIONAL TIME TO P m E  IN BECAUSE OF PROCEDURAL 
GUIDANCE, REVISION OF EES FORMS,  AND  ADDITIONAL STAFFING. 
2. FEEDBACK -  EFFECTIVE IMMEDIATELY 

RATERS  FOR  TSGT AND  BELOW ARE REQUIRED TO DOCUMENT THE  . 

A) 
INITIAL/MIDTERM PERFORMANCE FEEDBACK SESSION DATE IN SECTION V. 
. .  

CMSGT LEE 
DPMAJEP, 
SIGMO 

7-2571 

b- 

COL LERUM,  DPMA, 7-6314 

CRC: 22520  . 

UNCLASSIFIEQ  . 

091602ZJUN95 

9800369 

WCLASS I F I ED 

DPMAE 

JUN  95  RR  RR  UCNU- 

0 7   11  0 9 1 6 0 2 2  
NO 
CANCELLATION OF PROJECTED PROMOTION, IF ALREADY SELECTED  (WAPS)/FULLY 
QUALIFIED  (AMN-SRA). ALSO, PROMOTION REINSTATEMENT IS NOT AUTHORIZED 
EXCEPT AS OUTLINED IN AFI 36-2502, PARA 3 . 6 .   THE FOLLOWING CHANGES 
WILL BE IMPLEMENTED AS INDICATED BELOW: 
4-A-1) INDIVIDUALS IN PHASE I OF THE WGT MANAGEMENT PROGRAM (WSC 2 ) :  
EFFECTIVE 1 AUG 9 5   INDIVIDUALS IN WSC " 2 "   (UNSAT PROGRESS, PHASE I) 
WILL BE INELIGIBLE FOR PROMOTION. MPFS MUST IMMEDIATELY IDENTIFY 
INDIVIDUALS CURRENTLY IN WSC  Bf2'q AND  INFORM COMMANDERS TO NOTIFY THEM 
(AND FUTURE WSC  " 2 "   ENTRIES) THEY ARE INELIGIBLE FOR PROMOTION IF 
THEY ARE IN WSC 112" ON OR AFTER 1 AUG  95. FOR  INDIVIDUALS IN WSC  I l
r15"  AND Ir6I1,  CONTINUE USING PES CODE rrI" SINCE CURRENT PROMOTION 
ELIGIBILITY FOR THESE CODES REMAIN UNCHANGED  (AF'I  3 6 - 2 5 0 2 ,   TBL 1 . 2 ) .  
THIS CHANGE REQUIRES IMPLEMENTATION OF A  NEW PES CODE, WHICH WILL BE 
AVAILABLE IN THE NOV 95 SYSTEM  RELEASE. UNTIL THEN MPFS MUST IDENTIFY 
INDIVIDUALS IN WSC f 1 2 "  ON OR AFTER 1 AUG 9 5   AND  CHANGE PES FROM CODE 
"1" TO CODE "N". PLEASE CONTINUE USING PES CODE "N" ON ANY  FUTURE WSC 
"2"s. USING PES CODE "N" IS A TEMPORARY MEASURE AND REQUIRES CLOSE 
MONITORING TO ENSURE THERE ARE NOT ERRONEOUS PROMOTION SELECTIONS. 
4 - A - 2 )   REFERRAL OR " 2 "  EPRS ON TOP: INDIVIDUALS WITH A REFERRAL 
(ACCORDING TO AFI 3 6 - 2 4 0 3 ,   ATCH  1) OR  Iq2" EPR ON TOP CLOSING OUT 

-- 

 - 

l " ,

F 

, 

CMSGT LEE 
DPMAJEP,  7 - 2 5 7 1  

COL LERUM, DPMA, 7-6314 

CRC: 1 5 9 7 0  

UNCLASSIFIED 

0 9 1602ZJ"9  5 

9800369 

. . . . . . .  . . .  . 

., 

c 

UNCLASSIFIED 

DPMAE 

08  11  0916022  J" 95  RR  RR  UUlTu  - 
NO 
AFTER THE DATE OF THIS MESSAGE WILL BE INELIGIBLE FOR PROMOTION 
BECAUSE THERE'S  INSUFFICIENT TIME FOR THEM TO RECEIVE ANOTHER EPR 
PRIOR TO THE 1 AUG  95  IMPLEMENTATION DATE. FOR INDIVIDUALS WITH 
SUFFICIENT SUPERVISION (60 DAYS), IF CONSIDERED APPROPRIATE, 
COMMANDER CAN DIRECT AN  EPR TO C/O NLT 3 1   JUL 95 OR EARLIER, TO 
REGAIN PROMOTION ELIGIBILITY PRIOR TO 1 AUG 95 IMPLEMENTATION. 
EFFECTIVE 1 AUG 9 5   INDIVIDUALS WITH A REFERRAL OR "2:EPELON 
TOP WILL 
BE INELIGIBLE FOR PROMOTION. AFTER 31 JUL 95, SRA THROUGH SMSGT  WILL 
REGAIN THEIR ELIGIBILITY ONLY AFTER RECEIVING A REPORT WITH A  RATING 
OF Ir3" OR HIGHER THAT IS NOT A  REFERRAL AND CLOSES  OUT ON  OR BEFORE 
THE NEXT PECD, IF OTHERWISE ELIGIBLE. AB THRU A1C  MEETING TIG/TIS 
PROMOTION REQUIREMENTS AS OF 1 AUG 95  OR LATER CANNOT BE PROMOTED 
EARLIER THAN  THE CLOSE OUT DATE OF AN  EPR WITH A RATING OF "311 OR 
HIGHER THAT IS NOT A  REFERRAL, IF OTHERWISE ELIGIBLE AND APPROVED BY 
COMMANDER. MPFS MUST IDENTIFY INDIVIDUALS WITH A  REFERRAL  (AAC &MAY 
EE HELPFUL) OR "2" EPR ON TOP  AS  OF 1 AUG 95 AND  USE PES CODE 'W"  TO 
MONITOR THEIR PROMOTION STATUS UNTIL A NEW  PES CODE IS AVAILABLE WITH 
THE  NOV 95 SYSTEM RELEASE. ENSURE EVERY  EFFORT IS MADE TO NOTIFY 
INDIVIDUALS WITH A  REFERRAL AND/OR  1'21' EPR ON TOP AS OF 3.  AUG 95 OR 
LATER OF THEIR PROMOTION STATUS. SINCE THIS CHANGE AFFECTS SEVERAL 

CMSGT LEE 
DPMAJEP,  7-2571 

COL LERUM,  DPMA, 7-6314 

CRC: 15970 

UNCLASSIFIED  . 

091602ZJUN95 

9800369 

. . -.  .. . -. . . . 

..-. 

i? 

I .  

- .   '

4 

,

  * 

AFI 36-2502 20 JUJU  1994 

Correcting  Promotion  Effective  Dates  and 
1.12. 
Enlistment Grades.  HQ AFMPC/DPMAJW  corrects the 
promotion  effective  dates  as  a  result  of  promotion 
withhold  actions  and  supplementa1 promotion seIections 
upon notification  from the  MPF. 
cycle and  grade promoted  to,  new 
sequence  number,  date of  data verification  completion, 

for  promotion  withholding, 

date  commander  approved  promotion,  promotion  order 
(include  date.  number  and  issuing  headquarters)  and 
reason 
if  applicable. 
EXCEPTION: This does not apply to those in the weight 
management program (WMP) or substance abuse program 
participants.  Approved  enlistment grade corrections are 
updated by HQ AFMpC/DPMAJW. 

X  X 

F 

H 
I 
J 

G  has been  convicted by court-martial (CM), or is  undergoing punishment/sus-  X  X  X  X 

more  YOS, or  an approved  retirement  before  the  first  day  of  the  month 
promotions are incrernented in that cycle (See note 2) 
is a career airman who declines to extend or reenlist  to  obtain service retain-  X  X 
ability for a controlled duty asgn, PCS. TDY and retraining; declines retraining 
as outlined  in  AFI 36-2204; or  is  an airman  with an approved  voluntary 
retirement (instead of assignment).  PES code C (See note 2) 
pended  punishment imposed  by CM. (Includes  completed punishment  and 
cases where sentence does not include punishment.  PES code F (See note 2) 
is on the control roster (AFI 36-2907). PES code G (See note 2) 
is serving a probationary period under AFI 36-3208. PES code K (See note 2) 
is unfit to perform the duties of the grade due to physicaI disability as decided  X 
by the SAF.  PES code L (See note 3) 
Test Verificatfon, on file to that effect.  PES code M. 
removes the  individual from a select Bt.  PES code N. (See note 4 and para 
3.2) 

x

X 

I(  declines promotion consideratiodtesthg  and  has  an AF Form  1566, WAPS  X 
X 
L  is not recommended  for promotion consideration, or the  promotion authority  X  X  X  X 

X 

x

x
x
X  X  X  X 
X  X 

 

X 
X  X  X  X 
X  X 

X 

M  fails to appear for scheduled testing (no-show) without a valid reason as decided  X  X 
N  is absent without leave (AWOL)/in deserter status.  PES code U.  (See note 2) 
0 

by immediate commander PES c d e  P.  (See para 2.3.4) 
(excluding minor traffic violations) has been convicted by  a civilian court or  X 
undergoing  punishment,  suspended  punishmentkentence,  probation,  work 
release program, or any combination of  these or similar court-ordered condi- 
tions. Include period of time the airman is on probation after sewing part of  a 
sentence or has had the sentence withheld for a period of  time.  The ineligibil- 
ity period will  equal the maximm  confinement for the same or most closely 
related offense under the manual for CM.  PES code W.  (See notes 2 and 5) 
applies for voluntary retirement after promotion selection notification, and as a  X 
result of  approved retirement, doesn't have sufficient retainability to meet the 
wuircd ADSC.  Grade-status-reason is 3C. No change in PES code. 
has an approved  application for separation as a conscientious objector, or is  X 
being involuntarily separated under AFI 36-3208. PES code V. (See note 2) 
is on the  select list and  decIines promotion, or  is a MSgt,  SMSgt, or CMSgt  X 
selectee and fails to acquire service retainability for promotion.  Grade-status- 
reason is 3D.  No change in PES code. 
\ 
is denied or not selected for reenlistment.  PES code J.  (See note 2) (Ser  mM D 1  X 

P 

Q 

R 

S 

I 

X 

X 

X 

X  X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

(Table continued ou next page) 

9800369 

- d , .  

- 

i 

T 

U 

V 

W 

X 

.....  - 

5 

is pending  administrative demotion action under AFI  36-2503.  PES  code H. 
(See note 2) 
is identified as a substantiated substance abuser for other than alcohol and 
doesn't  successfully complete rehabilitation under the USAF SART Rogram. 
PES code T. (See note 2) 
x
is disqualified from a previously awarded AFS for cause (RI9A200 or 9A100). 
PES code Q. (See note 6) 
x
is undergoing a suspended reduction imposed by UCMJ Article 15, PES code 
A. (Seenote2) 
x
fails SART 3 or 4  (including self-ID or entered into SART 5).  PES code 0. 
(See note 2) 

x

x

l x x x x  
 
x

x

x
x
x

x
x
x

x
x
x

 
 
 

NOTES: 
1.  For ineligibility of airmen entering commissioning programs, see paragraph 3.1. 
2.  TSgt,  MSgt,  and  SMSgt with  a rehement  (based  on HYT)  date effective the first day  of  the  month  the  promotion 
iacrementhg  starts  remain  eligible  for promotion.  An  airman's  HYT extended  for  medical hold  remain  ineligible for 
promotion consideration.  Airmen will not  receive supplemental promotion consideration for my cycle they are ineligible 
under this rule.  You can promote  h e n  in grades AB  through  AIC exceeding TIG/TIS requirements  the day after the 
ineligibility condition no longer exists.  PES code will change to 'XI' effective the date AFMPC  approves withdrawal of  a 
PCS declination statement. 
3.  Promote airmen who remain on active duty in a limited assignment status (LAS),  or who remain on active duty and later 
found fit after formal proceedings.  Do this on the promotion effective date the PSN is announced.  If  returned to active duty 
from TDRL, the DOR is the original date of promotion.  The effective date is date returned to active duty. 
4.  Nonrecommend airmen in the grade of AB through AlC in monthly increments fiom the original effective date outlined in 
AFMAN 36-2125 (formerly AFM 30-130, volume 1).  B'IZ  selectees removed from the selection list remain ineligible until 
they meet the fully qualified promotion requirements. 
5.  You may waive the  promotion ineligibility or any portion of the ineligible period.  You may  not  waive the  promotion 
ineligibility for airmen convicted and sentenced to confinement.  The waiver authority rests with the wing commander. 
6.  Individuals placed  in  RI9A200  (unclassified airman pending discharge)  and  RI9AI00  (airman awaiting retraining, 
disqualifted for reasons within control) remain ineligibre for promotion. Place them in PES code "Q". effective the date of 
disqualification.  Do this until awarding the airman a PAFSC at a skill level commensurate with current grade.  NOTE: PES 
code "Q'' does not apply to airmen serving in grades AB and Amn. 

I 
T 
E 
M 
1 
I 

Withhold an airmads promotion when hls or her name is removed from a select or eIigibiuty list and 
the a h a n  is 
awaiting a decision on an application as a conscientious objector (An 36-3204 [formerly AFR 35-24]). PES 
I 
I codes. 

(Notes to table continued on next page) 

9800369 

. . . . . .. . . . . . . 

DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE 

HEADQUARTERS AIR FORCE MILITARY PERSONNEL CENTER 

RANDOLPH AIR FORCE BASE TEXAS 

MEMORANDUM FOR AFBCMR 

FROM:  HQ AFPCDPPPAB 

550 C Street West, Suite 8 
Randolph AFB TX  78 I 50-47 IO 

$9  APR  1998 

I 

Requested Action.  The applicant requests voidance of the enlisted performance report 

(EPR) that closed out 16 Aug 95. 

Basis for Request.  The applicant believes the comments the rater used are not consistent 
with the legal review findings of the report of inquiry (ROI), feedback sessions and past duty 
performance. 

Recommendation. Deny. 

Facts and Comments. 

a.  The application is timely.  The applicant filed a similar appeal under AFI 36- 

2401, Correcting Officer and Enlisted Evaluation Reports, which was denied by the 
Evaluation Report Appeal Board in their 22 Jul97 memorandum.  A copy of the AF Form 
948, Application for CorrectiodRemoval of Evaluation Reports, and the ERAB”s decision 
letter is attached to our advisory. 

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; a copy of the 

Legal Review of the Report of Inquiry; a copy of his rebuttal to the referral EPR; a summary 
of his DD 149 appeal; and a copy of the contested referral EPR with the notification 
memorandum attached. 

d.  Air Force policy is that an evaluation report is accurate as written when it 

becomes a matter of record.  To effectively challenge an EPR, it is necessary to hear from all 
the members of the rating chain-not only for support, but for clarificatiodexplanation. The 
applicant failed to provide any informatiodsupport from the rating chain on the contested 
EPR.  In the absence of information from evaluators, official substantiation of error or 
injustice from the Inspector General (IG) or Social Actions is appropriate, but not provided in 
this case.  In this case, the applicant submitted a copy of the legal review of the ROI.  The 

legal reviewer found the applicant had willingly “gamed the system” by failing to report 
cancellations of new recruits until he had replacements for them.  Additionally, those under 
his supervision had “followed his lead” and used the same unethical method of reporting the 
number of recruits.  The legal review officer found those individuals undeserving of any 
derogatory action, not the applicant.  He ascertained the applicant had “no doubt, danced 
around” the subject of gaming the system when questioned by the investigative officer and 
believed this “activity (falsifying records) was long-term, pervasive, and served to encourage 
junior E Flight personnel to do likewise.”  He recommended an Unfavorable Information File 
(UIF) be established and the Letter of Reprimand (LOR) be placed in it.  Additionally, he 
concurred the applicant should be relieved of his duties as flight supervisor and retrained into 
a different career field.  The applicant did not provide a copy of the LOR.  He also claims a 
UIF was never established.  We, therefore, believe the report to be an accurate assessment of 
the applicant’s duty performance during the period in question. 

e.  The applicant is attempting to relate the ratings on the EPR to the markings on the 
performance feedback worksheet (PFW).  Although the applicant did not provide the PFW, it is a 
moot point because it is an inappropriate comparison and is inconsistent’with the EES. 

(1)  The PFW relates only to duty performance.  It is not an absolute indicator of 

potential for serving in a higher grade. 

(2)  The purpose of the feedback session is to give the ratee direction and to define 
performance expectations for the rating period in question.  Feedback also provides the ratee the 
opportunity to improve performance, if necessary, before the EPR is written.  The rater who 
prepares the PFW may use the PFW as an aid in preparing the EPR and, if applicable, subsequent 
feedback sessions. 

(3)  The PFW acts as a scale on where the ratee stands in relation to the duty 

performance expectations of the rater.  A PFW with all items marked “needs little or no 
improvement” means the xatee is meeting the rater’s standards.  It does not guarantee a firewalled 
EPR.  Also, a ratee who performs current duties in an exceptional manner couId demonstrate 
only limited potential for the next higher grade.  Or, a ratee who still needs to improve in the 
performance of current duties could demonstrate great potential for the next higher grade.  There 
is a not a direct correlation between the markings on the PFW and the ratings on an EPR. 

(4) Every exceptional performer does not possess outstanding promotion 

potential and evaluators need to make that clear on the EPRs they write. 

f.  The applicant contends the contested EPR is inconsistent with previous 

performance.  We agree.  However, it is not feasible to compare one report covering a certain 
period of time with another report covering a different period of time.  This does not allow for 
changes in the ratee’s performance and does not follow the intent of the governing regulation, 
AFI 36-2403.  The EPR was designed to provide a rating for a specific period of time based on 
the performance noted during that period, not based on previous performance. 

9 30369 
. .. . .. . . 

g. We would like to point out the contested referral EPR, rendered to the applicant as 

a result of substantiated unethical behavior, inadvertently caused those under his direction to 
“follow suit” and falsify official government records.  We concur with the advisory opinion 
rendered by HQ AFPC/DPPPWB on 25 Mar 98.  Even if the board directs removal of the referral 
report, the applicant would not become eligible for promotion consideration.  The applicant was 
removed from the recruiting career field for reasons within his control and subsequently 
retrained.  He currently hoIds a “3” skill level, which renders him ineligible for promotion 
consideration. The applicant was expected to maintain standards of conduct and responsibility at 
least as stringent as the rest of the noncommissioned officer (NCO) corps.  The applicant used 
poor judgment and made false official statements, a point not in contention, and this impropriety 
was appropriately reflected in his 16 Aug 95 EPR.  We understand the applicant’s desire for the 
board to direct voidance of the contested EPR.  However, to remove the EPR from his record 
would be unfair to all the other NCOs who exercised integrity and honestly and effectively 
performed their duties.  We, therefore, conclude removal of the contested report would make the 
applicant’s record inaccurate. 

Summary.  Based on the evidence provided, our recommendation of denial is appropriate. 

&f.+ 

0  CEE.HOGA 

Chief, BCMR and SSB Section 
Dir of Personnel Program Mgt 

Attachment: 
HQ AFPC/DPPPAE Ltr, 22 Jul97 w/Atch 

. . .  

. .  
. 

.

.... 
.
 

.

, 

.,  .  .. ... . 

~ 

, , ~  .  . .   _.. ; . 

'  ...  ,  ; 

-* 

. . ,  

, 

I 

2

.

 

2 2  JUL  1997 

530 C Struet We&, Ste 8 
Randolph AFB, TX 781504710 

SUBTECT: Am 36-2401 Decision:- 
EPR closing 16 Aug 95 

PRoAd: NQAFPC/DPPPAE 

- 
- 

The Evaluation Report Appeal Board (ERAE) denied the attached appeal 

application.  Tbe board conaiders an evaluation npxt to be aa accurate assessment 
when rendered; therefore, substantial evidence is required to challenge zimport's 
8ocur8cy.  As you are aware, the Military Personoel Flight is responsible for providmg 
members counseling OR  applications submitted under A€?€ 36-2401,  As such, to assist 
you in counseling the applicant, this letter provides our aasehment of the application. 
We believe the Board was not convinced by -dooumentation. 
'Ihe Boerd 
found no evidence that the contested report waa an hacowate assessment o
m
 
performance  durhg the period in question, that it contained etrmeous 
Wonnation, nor that it w88 improperly prepared or rendered  Statements fiom 
members of the rating chain that provide clear evidence of m r  or injustice may 
strengthen this oase. 

After counrreling, please provide thig letter announcb ths Bosrd'rr decision to 

He may gather new meterial evidence end reapply under Am 36-2401, but 
the original documentation rrubmitted wit31 this appeal ahodd be inaluded with the new 
apptication.  While WB cannot guarentee afavorable decieim will result from the 
additional evidence submitted, ww will o n m  the case is procwtwd as fad as pomible. 
Another wenue available to- 
Fmw Board for Correction of Military Records. 

is to appeal under AFI 35-2603 to the Ab 

KENNEZHR WMTT, MSgt, USAF 
NCOIC, Evatuatio~ Reports Appeah Section 
Directorate of Pwp Prgm Mgt 

9800369 

~ 

APPLICATION FOR CORRECTION/REMOVAL OF EVALUATION REPORTS 

~ 

t r t u ~ i u r u r s ~ u ~ r ~ c t  

I J I W  w i v d r a c ~ w  1 9 a  

item continuation numhers. 
I. NAME fPrlnf  LJSt.  First.  M'ddlc  lniriall 

3.  SOCIAL SECURITY  NUYBLR 

5.  OFFICE PMONC 

1.  GRAD€ 
TSgt 
{Autovon and  Lrrcnrmn) 1 

or rdvirr of any change DI rddrcSSJ 

IO.  ACTION RLOULSTED (Be brief  an? sperifirl 
Void  F9E.  wicloseout  date  i f  1'6 Aug  95. 

I 

I 

BDiJtd,. 

I am not  criminal. 

The  terminolgy used  on  my EPR are words  that  suggest 

I  I .   REASONS TO SUPPOaT REOUEST€D ACTION  (Be br'rf and spccrtrcl 
As a  result  of  an inquiry  while  I was  B  cacruiter,  thp_ Staff  Judge  Advocates  i>ffice 
fisagreed with  the  actions  of  the  inquiry officer,  however,  the  rater of  my EPR  used 
terminology and  words  (and this i s  how  I was  ultimately  rated)  on  the  EPR  which  directly 
xmtradicted with  the  real  findings. 
E was  a  criminal (according  to  the  Judge Advocates  Office  whom  I consulted  after  the  EPR 
I was  issued  a  l e t t e r  of  reprimand  prior  to  this EFR. 
#as written). 
: was  not  given  a  UIF  nor  was  I placed  on  the  control  roster. 
The  inquiry officer  reCOmnenc 
r t i c l e  15's,  Court  Martial action  and'he even  went  as far as suggesting psychiatric  evd- 
lation  just  because  I couldn't  remember dates  and  times  (which  were  approx  1 year  prior  to 
'Ihe  Judge  Advocate  highly  reconmended none  of  the  action  be  taken  and claimel 
.he inquiry). 
.he inquiry  officer  acted  i n   "greater vehemance"  than he  should  have. 
: need  your  assistance. 
he  leadership philosophies  of  my  supervisor  and comnander. 
ind their willingness  to  take  care  of  the  troops  i n  my  flight. 
larked  man. 
. w e d  around  by  the  SJA,  my  supervisor and  camnander  decided  t o  use  a l l  they  could  i n  any 
ray  they  could  to  "punish" me  for questioning  their  ways  (lack  of  integrity). 

There  was art  ax  to  grind because  I began  disagreeing  with  some  of 
I questioned  their  integrity 
Since that  day,  I was a 
Even  though  the  inquiry was 

It  was  obvious  to me  and  to  others around  me. 

I 

9800369 

> '