RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
IN THE MATTER OF:
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
DOCKET NUMBER: 98- 00813
COUNSEL: NONE
SEP 1 6 1998
HEARING DESIRED: YES
APPLICANT REOUESTS THAT :
The Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) rendered for the period
6 April 1 9 9 4 through 5 April 1 9 9 5 be declared void and removed
from his records.
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
The contested APR is unwarranted and unjustified.
He states that his rater did not obtain input from others; that
senior management showed reprisal against him and directed the
rater to downgrade the report from a " 5 " rating to a '4" rating;
that the close-out date of the report should be 5 January 1 9 9 5 ;
that he was not given any indication that his performance was not
outstanding; and, that the report is inconsistent with his
previous and subsequent duty performance.
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 staff sergeant.
The applicant filed an appeal under AFI 36- 2401, Correcting
Officer and Enlisted Evaluation Reports, which was denied by the
Evaluation Reports Appeal Board ( E m ) .
EPR profile since 1992 reflects the following:
EVALUATION OF POTENTIAL
PERIOD ENDING
5 April 1 9 9 2
5 April 1993
5 April 1 9 9 4
"5 April 1 9 9 5
5 April 1 9 9 7
98-008 13
* Contested report.
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
c _L.
The Acting Chief, BCMR and SSB Section, AFPC/DPPPAB, reviewed
this application and indicates that a review of the documents
provided does not reveal a violation of regulatory provisions or
indicate an injustice has occurred. It appears this appeal is
simply an effort to remove an "undesirable" report.
They
understand the applicant's desire to have the report removed
because of the promotion advantage.
However, they strongly
recommend applicant's request be denied.
A complete copy of the evaluation is attached at Exhibit C.
The Chief, Inquiries/AFBCMR Section, AFPC/DPPPAB, also reviewed
this application and indicated that if the contested report is
removed, applicant will be entitled to supplemental promotion
consideration to technical sergeant beginning with cycle 9636.
A complete copy of their evaluation is attached at Exhibit D.
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORC E EVALUATION:
Applicant reviewed the evaluations and has provided comments to
each paragraph of the evaluation concerning the removal of the
contested report.
In addition, he states that he is aware of the importance of
having as many letters as possible from individuals with first
hand knowledge of any facts and circumstances relating to his
appeal. It's just very hard to get these people who have this
critical knowledge to offer their support in situations such as
this, especially when they have reason to Feel reprisal because
these individuals are still assigned to that unit and are under
that same management. He has spoken to a few people still
assigned to that unit who told him in fact they know he was
treated unfair and unjust. These individuals also stated that
supervision and management still continuesto display favoritism
and preferential treatment towards certain individuals. These
individuals inclined not to voice their opinions because of their
fear of reprisal by the unit's leadership.
Applicant states that all he is asking is for all of *the
circumstances relating to his case be thoroughly investigated.
He hopes he could be granted a hearing in order for him to be
able to better present his case. It's only right for every
individual to be rated solely on their performance and abilities.
2
98-00813
Applicant's complete response, with attachments, is attached at
Exhibit F.
THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:
. :.
1. The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by.existing
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. We took
notice of the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits
of the case; however, we agree with the opinion and recommendation
of the Air Force and adopt their rationale as the basis for the
conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of an error
Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the
or injustice.
contrary, we find no compelling basis to recommend granting the
relief sought in 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(s1 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 27 August 1998, under the provisions of AFI
36-2603:
Mr. David W. Mulgrew, Panel Chair
Mr. Jackson A. Hauslein, Member
Mr. Terry A. Yonkers, Member
Ms. Phyllis L. Spence, Examiner (without vote)
3
'
I
.
The following documentary evidence was considered:
98-008 13
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 25 Mar 98, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPPPAB, dated 1 May 98.
Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/DPPPWB, dated 21 Apr 98.
Exhibit E. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 11 May 98.
Exhibit F. Applicant's Response, undated, w/atchs.
< L
DAVID W. MULGREW
Panel Chair
U
4
DPPPAB stated that the applicant has failed to provide any information/support from the rating chain on the contested EPR. Air Force policy states that only 120 days of supervision are required before accomplishing an EPR; and 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. He did provide evidence with his application that the performance feedback statement is false.
The rater states that during the reporting period he rated applicant’s performance as an overall “2’, based upon the fact that he believed at the time that he was not ready for advancement to the rank of master sergeant. In reference to the applicant asserting the indorsers from the contested report did not have firsthand knowledge of his duty performance and were therefore, unable to render a proper evaluation of his duty performance; they state that the Air Force charges evaluators with...
In his submissions to the Evaluation Reports Appeal Board (ERAB), he illustrated his insufficient training, his attempts to get training, and the different conversations he had with the rater concerning his duty performance and accomplished workload tasks. The applicant contends he did not receive the 28 Jun 96 feedback session as indicated on his 16 Nov 96 EPR; however, he did not provide anything from his evaluator to support his allegation. Especially in view of the fact that the report...
AF | BCMR | CY1998 | BC-1998-00743
He receive supplemental promotion consideration for promotion to the grade of Chief Master Sergeant (E-9) by the promotion cycle 97E9. A copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit D. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on 4 May 1998 for review and response within 30 days. In view of the foregoing, we recommend the contested report be...
He receive supplemental promotion consideration for promotion to the grade of Chief Master Sergeant (E-9) by the promotion cycle 97E9. A copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit D. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on 4 May 1998 for review and response within 30 days. In view of the foregoing, we recommend the contested report be...
On 9 September 1997, the applicant wrote to the 39th Wing IG alleging he had experienced reprisal by his squadron commander for giving a protected statement to an IG investigator during a separate IG investigation on 15 and 19 July 1997. The applicant alleged the squadron commander withheld a senior rater endorsement to [the EPR in question]. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Chief, Inquiries/AFBCMR Section, HQ AFPC/DPPPWB, reviewed...
On 18 January 1994, the applicant received a second LOR for failure to pay a debt to the Army and Air Force Exchange Service (AAFES). In regards to the applicant stating that the contested EPRs are inconsistent with previous performance; 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. A complete copy of their evaluation is attached at Exhibit E. APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE...
The applicant appealed the contested report under the provisions of AFI 36-2401, Correcting Officer and Enlisted Evaluation Reports, and the appeal was considered and denied by the Evaluation Report Appeal Board (ERAB). A complete copy of the evaluation, with attachment, is attached at Exhibit C. 97-02238 The Chief, Inquiries/AFBCMR Section, Airman Promotion Branch, HQ AFPC/DPPPWB, also reviewed this application and states that should the Board void the contested report, and providing...
He also provided documentation presented with his appeal submitted under the provisions of AFI 36-2401 to the Evaluation Reports Appeal Board (ERAB), which included copies of the contested reports; a Performance Feedback Worksheet, dated 14 Mar 96; documentation associated with a letter of reprimand received during the contested rating period; documentation associated with his training records; and several statements of character reference from co-workers and acquaintances. While...
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 00-02173 INDEX CODE: 111.02 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) rendered for the period 30 Aug 98 through 29 Aug 99 be declared void and removed from his records. Based on the reason(s) for the referral EPR, the applicant’s commander could very well have...