RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS *UG 1 8 896
.'
-
OF:
IN THE MATTER
DOCKET NUMBER: 9 8 - 0 0 7 7 7
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
Applicant requests that his Enlisted Performance Report (EPR)
rendered for the period 1 Apr 94 through 8 Sep 95 be declared
void and removed from his records. Applicant's submission is at
Exhibit A.
The appropriate Air Force offices evaluated applicant's request
and provided advisory opinions to the Board recommending the
application be denied (Exhibit C). The advisory opinions were
forwarded to the applicant for review and response (Exhibit D).
Applicant's response to the advisory opinions is at Exhibit E.
After careful consideration of applicant's request and the
available evidence of record, we find insufficient evidence of
error or injustice to warrant corrective action. The facts and
opinions stated in the advisory opinions appear to be based on
the evidence of record and have not been adequately rebutted by
applicant.
Absent persuasive evidence applicant was denied
rights to which entitled, appropriate regulations were not
followed,, or appropriate standards were not applied, we find no
basis to disturb the existing record.
Accordingly, applicant's request is denied.
The Board staff is directed to inform applicant of this decision.
Applicant should also be informed that this decision is final and
will only be reconsidered upon the presentation of new relevant
evidence which was not reasonably available at the time the
application was filed.
-
Members of the Board Mr. Douglas J. Heady, Mr. Joseph G. Diamond,
and Mr. Henry Romo, Jr. considered this application on 11 Aug 98
in accordance with the provisions of Air Force Instruction 3 6 -
2603 and the governing statute, 10 U.S.C. 1552.
DOUGLAS J. H E ~ Y
Panel Chair
Exhibits:
A. Applicant's DD Form 149
B. Available Master Personnel Records .
C. Advisory Opinions
D.
E. Applicant's Response
SAF/MIBR Ltr Forwarding Advisory Opinions
rk
. c
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 78 150-47 10
Requested Action. The applicant requests voidance of the enlisted performance report
(EPR) that closed out 8 Sep 95.
Basis for Request. The applicant contends his rater did not have a sufficient number of
days of supervision to render an evaluation report. The applicant, a cross-trainee, believes he
was not recommended for senior rater indorsement by his commander since he had only been in
the career field a short time.
Recommendation. Deny.
Facts and Comments.
a. The application is timely. The appIicant filed a similar appeal under AFI 36-
240 1, Correcting Officer and Enlisted Evaluation Reports, which was denied by the
Evaluation Report Appeal Board (ERAB), 11 Feb 98. A copy of the ERAB package is
included with the applicant’s appeal.
b. AFI 36-2403, The Enlisted Evaluation System, 15 Jul94, is the governing
directive.
c. In support of his appeal the applicant includes a persona1 brief and a copy of the
ERAB appeal package.
d. Air Force policy is that an evaluation report is accurate as written when it becomes
a matter of record. It takes substantial evidence to the contrary to have a report changed or
voided. To effectively challenge an EPR, it is important to hear from all the evaluators on the
contested report--not only for support, but for clarificatiodexplanation. We do not find any
evidentiary support from any of the evaluators of the 8 Sep 95 EPR. As pointed out in the
ERAB’s denial letter (1 1 Feb 98), AFI 36-2401, paragraph 2.1.5, has provisions for contacting
individuals in the rating chain to obtain supporting statements. In the absence of information
from evaluators, official substantiation of error or injustice from the Inspector General (IG) or
9800777
..... .... . .
Social Actions is appropriate, but not provided in this case. It appears the contested report was
accomplished in direct accordance with Air Force policy in effect at the time it was rendered.
e. Although the applicant was away from his home station on temporary duty (TDY)
some 200 plus days (he was on station approximately 208 days), he has failed to substantiate his
claim the rater supervised him for less than 120 days. The 26 days he was on leave during the
reporting period is irrelevant to this appeal since only periods of TDY or leave of 30 consecutive
days or more are deducted from the total number days supervision (AFI 36-2403, paragraph
4.3.9.2). The copy of the performance feedback worksheet (PFW) he provided does not prove
when the rater was appointed, only the day the product was generated. In order to substantiate
when the rater was appointed, he must provide a valid source document from either his Military
Personnel Flight (MPF) or Commander's Support Staff (CSS), such as an AF Form 2096.
Additionally, letters from the evaluators supporting his claim would certainly lend more
credibility to his contentions.
f. Although not specifically addressed, the applicant implies the contested EPR is
inconsistent with his previous and subsequent performance reports because he did not receive his
senior rater's indorsement. 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 other periods of performance.
g. The burden of proof is on the applicant. He has not substantiated the contested
report was not rendered in good faith by all evaluators based on knowledge available at the time.
We understand the applicant's is concerned because he did not receive his senior rater's
indorsement on the contested performance report. However, applicant's desire to have the
contested EPR removed because of the perceived promotion advantage is unwarranted. The fact
remains there were sufficient days of supervision during the reporting period to validate the
report.
Summary. Based on the evidence provided, our recommendation of denial is appropriate.
$*Z-."".-
JO EE.HOGAN
Chief, BCMR and SSB Section
Dir of Personnel Program Mgt
98 0777
- - - - . . .
However, they do not, in our opinion, support a finding that the evaluators were unable to 3 ' 97-03510 render unbiased evaluations of the applicant's performance or that the ratings on the contested report were based on factors other than applicant's duty performance during the contested rating period. Applicant contends the contested report is an inaccurate account of his performance during the reporting period because the rater did not gather input from other sources pertaining to the...
AF | BCMR | CY1999 | BC-1998-00968
_________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Chief, Inquiries/AFBCMR Section, AFPC/DPPPWB, reviewed this application and indicated that, the first time the report was considered in the promotion process was cycle 97E7 to master sergeant (promotions effective Aug 97 - Jul 98). While the applicant provided two letters from his rater who claims that she was coerced by her superiors and changed her evaluation of the applicant’s duty performance...
_________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Chief, Inquiries/AFBCMR Section, AFPC/DPPPWB, reviewed this application and indicated that, the first time the report was considered in the promotion process was cycle 97E7 to master sergeant (promotions effective Aug 97 - Jul 98). While the applicant provided two letters from his rater who claims that she was coerced by her superiors and changed her evaluation of the applicant’s duty performance...
AF | BCMR | CY1999 | BC-1998-01229
DPPPA further states that an evaluation report is considered to represent the rating chain’s best judgment at the time it is rendered and once a report is accepted for file, only strong evidence to the contrary warrants correction or removal from an individual’s record. 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. Exhibit E. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 13 Jul 98.
DPPPA further states that an evaluation report is considered to represent the rating chain’s best judgment at the time it is rendered and once a report is accepted for file, only strong evidence to the contrary warrants correction or removal from an individual’s record. 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. Exhibit E. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 13 Jul 98.
Therefore, DPPPAB recommended the Board direct the removal of the mid-term feedback date from the contested EPR and add the following statement: “Ratee has established that no mid-term feedback session was provided in accordance with AFI 36-2403.” A complete copy of this evaluation is appended at Exhibit D. APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to applicant on 10 Sep 99 for review and response. The mid-term feedback date be removed...
A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit B. A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation, with attachment, is attached at Exhibit C. APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Applicant reviewed the Air Force evaluations and provided a two-page response with a copy of her most recent EPR closing 15 Feb 99. Initially when applicant appealed the contested report under the provisions of AFI 36-2401, she asserted that the report did not accurately reflect her...
The applicant filed two similar appeals under AFI 3 6 - 2 4 0 1 , Correcting Officer and Enlisted Evaluation Reports, which were denied by the Evaluation Reports Appeal Board (ERAB). The applicant requests the Board upgrade his 24 Jun 95 enlisted performance report (EPR) to a “5” in Section IV, Promotion Recommendation. The additional documentation he has submitted still by this “policy” regarding individuals who received an Article 15 (or that it ever existed).
_________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Enlisted Promotion Branch, HQ AFPC/DPPPWB, stated that the first time the contested report was considered in the promotion process was Cycle 97E6 to technical sergeant (E-6), promotions effective Aug 97 - Jul 98. It is noted that the applicant will become a selectee for promotion during this cycle if the Board grants his request, pending a favorable data verification check and the recommendation of...
Applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A. A complete copy of the DPPPAB evaluation is at Exhibit D. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Applicant indicated that he is providing all the applicable documents concerning his request to have the contested report corrected. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: The pertinent military records of the Department of...