AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

IN THE MATTER OF: 

DOCKET NUMBER:  98-01494 

COUNSEL:  None 

HEARING DESIRED:  No 

Applicant  requests  that  the  Enlisted  Performance  Report  (EPR) 
rendered for the period 24 Feb 93 through 23 Oct  94 be declared 
void and removed from her 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). 
As of this date, no response has been received by this office. 

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 opiniQns appear to be  based  on 
the evidence of record and have not been  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.  Vaughn  E.  Schlunz,  Mr.  Richard  A. 
Peterson, and Mr. Patrick R. Wheeler considered this application 
on  29 September  1998  in  accordance with  the  provisions  of  Air 
Force Instruction 36-2603, and the governing statute, 10, U.S.C. 
1552. 

dd:sW 

Panel Chair 

Exhibits : 
A.  Appli 
B.  Available Master Personnel Records 
C.  Advisory Opinions 
D.  AFBCMR Ltr Forwarding Advisory Opinions 

t’  DD Form 149 

D E P A R T M E N T  OF T H E  A I R   FORCE 

H E A D Q U A R T E R S   AIR  F O R C E   P E R S O N N E L C E N T E R  

R A N D O L P H   AIR  F O R C E   B A S E  T E X A S  

MEMORANDUM FOR  AFBCMR 

FROM:  HQ AFPCDPPPAB 

550 C Street West, Suite 8 
Randolph AFB TX  78 1 50-47 10 

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

(EPR) that closed out 23 Oct 94. 

Basis for Request.  The applicant contends her EPR is erroneous because she got married 

three weeks prior to the close-out date of the report.  She also believes the referral EPR will 
greatly impair her chances for employment in the medical field after completion of college. 

Recommendation.  Time bar.  If the AFBCMR considers, we recommend denial.  By law, 

a claim must be filed within three years of the date of discovery of the alleged error or injustice 
(1 0 U.S.C.  1552[b]).  It is obvious that the errors claimed here were discoverable at the time they 
occurred.  The applicant provided nothing to convince us that the errors were not discoverable 
until Mar 98, nor has she offered a concrete explanation for filing late.  While we would 
normally recommend the application be denied as untimely, we are aware that the AFBCMR has 
determined it must adhere to the decision in the case of Detweiler v. Pena, 38F.3d591 (D.C. Cir 
1994)--which prevents application of the statute's time bar if the applicant has filed within three 
years of separation or retirement. 

Facts and Comments: 

a.  An appeal under AFI 36-240 1, Correcting Officer and Enlisted Evaluation 

Reports,  1 Aug 97, would have been inappropriate as the report is more than three years old 
and the applicant separated from active duty  15 Jun 96. 

b.  In support of her appeal the applicant submits an ARPC (Air Reserve Personnel 
Center) Form  156, Personnel Documents/Forms; a copy of the contested referral EPR; a copy 
of the rebuttal comments to the referral EPR; and a copy of a memorandum  from 35 
SUPSLGSM. 

c.  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 has 
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. 

d.  The applicant claims her name changed as a result of her marriage three weeks 
prior to the close-out date of her 23 Oct 94 EPR.  However, she did not provide any official 
documentation, such as a marriage certificate, to prove when she was married, nor evidence to 
validate when she began the process to effect her name change in the personnel data system 
(PDS).  Her Air Force records indicate her name change occurred in PDS 2 Nov 94, some 10 
days after the close-out date of the report.  We also note she acknowledged receipt of the referral 
EPR on 7 Nov 94 by signing her maiden name.  Her response to the referral report was signed 
using her maiden name.  Ten days later, on 17 Nov 94, she signed her rebuttal to the referral 
report using her married name.  If the applicant can prove she submitted the proper 
documentation to effect her name change to the Military Personnel Flight (MPF) prior to the 
close-out date of the report, and they delayed processing her request, we recommend the Board 
change her name only, to reflect the name shown on the marriage certificate in accordance with 
the governing directive, AFI 36-2608, Military Personnel Record System, 1 Jul96, paragraph 
5.4.6.  A name change is not sufficient grounds to void an entire report.  The report was written 
in accordance with governing regulations. 

e.  The applicant mentions a personality conflict existed between she and her 

supervisor.  It is common for individuals who do not perform at expected standards or who 
require close supervision to believe an evaluator is personally biased.  However, the conflict 
generated by this personal attention is usually professional rather than personal.  The applicant 
has not cited specific examples of the conflict or bias to prove her evaluator was unfavorably 
biased.  She has also failed to provide firsthand evidence to clearly show the conflict prevented 
her supervisor from preparing a fair and accurate report.  Letters from her evaluators would 
certainly clarify the relationship between her and her supervisor, however, they are 
conspicuously missing from her appeal package.  It is apparent to us this appeal is merely an 
attempt to remove an undesirable report from her record in order to enhance her chances for 
future employment.  We would be strongly opposed to the Board voiding the referral EPR. 

Summary.  Based on the evidence provided, our recommendation to deny voiding the 

report is appropriate.  As an alternative, correcting the applicant’s last name only, as discussed in 
subparagraph d above, might be appropriate if the applicant provides documentation to show she 
was married before the closing date of the report. 

p-t.b$p- 

J 6   CEE.HO  AN 

Chief, BCMR and SSB Section 
Directorate of Pers Program Mgt 

D E P A R T M E N T  O F  T H E  A I R   F O R C E  

H E A D Q U A R T E R S  AIR  FORCE P E R S O N N E L C E N T E R  

R A N D O L P H  AIR  FORCE  B A S E  TEXAS 

5  JUN  1398 

MEMORANDUM FOR AFPUDPPPAB 

AFBCMR 
IN TURN 

FROM:  HQ AFPCIDPPPWB 

550 C Street West, Ste 09 
Randolph AFB TX  78 150-47 1 1 

SUBJECT:  Application for Correction of Military Records 

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

Performance Report (EPR) closing 23 Oct 94.  We will address the promotion issue with regard 
to the EPR. 

Reason for Request.  The applicant alleges the contested EPR reflects her maiden name, 

not her married name.  She also states it would be in her own interest to ensure the EPR and 
referral are discarded for they may jeopardize her opportunity to be employed in the medical 
field when she graduates from college. 

Facts.  See Hq AFPCDPPPAB Memorandum. 

Discussion. 

a.  The applicant enlisted 16 Dec 92 in the grade of airman (E-2).  The normal 

progression to A1C (E-3) is 10 months time-in-grade (TIG), not be ineligible for any of the 
reasons in AFI 36-2502, Table 1.1, and be recommended by the commander.  For promotion to 
SrA (E-4) the eligibility requirements are 36 months total active federal military service and 20 
months TIG as an A1C or 28 months TIG  as an AlC (whichever condition is satisfied first), a 
Primary Air Force Specialty Code (PAFSC) at the 3-Skill Level, not be ineligible for any of the 
reasons in AFR 36-2502, Table 1.1, and be recommended by the commander.  Since her 
enlistment grade on 16 Dec 92 was Airman, she met the TIG requirement to A1C on 16 Oct 93 
(10 months later) and to SrA on 16 Dec 95 when she would have completed 36 months active 
military service and 20 months TIG.  We note however, that she was not promoted to SrA until 
24 Feb 96.  The record does not indicate when she was promoted to A1C.  Consequently, we are 
unable to determine which grade (A1C or SrA) was delayed. 

b.  In the applicant’s response dated 17 Nov 94 to the referral EPR, she states that she 

realizes that ‘she has a lot of reprimands in her Personal Information File (PIF) and didn’t 
consider herself ready for promotion.’  She also states that “she feels that finding me not 
recommended at this time would be more fair to her and her situation as she tried to improve.’  It 

would appear that her promotion to SrA may have been delayed as a result of the contents of the 
referral EPR.  However, even if the Board should remove the EPR because of an incorrect name, 
we do not recommend she be promoted to either A1C or SrA any earlier than she was promoted 
because of the contents of the EPR and her response to it dated 17 Nov 94. 

Recommendation. We defer to the recommendation of Hq AFPCDPPPAB concerning 

removal of the EPR but do not recommend she be promoted to either A1C or SrA any earlier 
than she was promoted. 

$ 2 . 9  
TO  YR.MERRITT 
Chief, InquiriedAFBCMR Section 
Enlisted Promotion Branch