AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
IN THE MATTER OF:
DOCKET NUMBER: 98-01530
COUNSEL: None
HEARING DESIRED: NO
APPLICANT REOUESTS THAT:
The Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) for the period 7 Feb 97
through 30 Nov 97 be removed from his records.
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
There were not enough days of supervision "to justify a rating of
this caliber." The rater supervised him for 100 days or less,
not 132 days as reflected on the EPR. He tried to obtain travel
vouchers [on the rater] under 'the Freedom of Information Act
(FOIA) to prove his case but has been unsuccessful.
A copy of applicant's complete submission is at Exhibit A.
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
Applicant is currently serving in the Regular Air Force in the
grade of staff sergeant.
Applicant filed a similar appeal under the provisions of AFI 36-
2401, which was denied by the Evaluation Report Appeal Board
(ERAB) on 28 Apr 98.
EPR profile since 1992 reflects the following:
PERIOD ENDING
OVERALL EVALUATION
10
20
7
11
6
6
6
6
*11
Feb 92
Jun 92
Jan 93
May 93
Feb 94
Feb 95
Feb 96
Feb 97
Nov 97
* Contested report.
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
The Chief, Inquiries/AFBCMR Section, HQ AFPC/DPPPWB, reviewed
this appeal and states that, if a favorable decision is received
by 1 May 00, supplemental promotion consideration for cycle 00E6
for technical sergeant would not be necessary.
A copy of the complete Air Force evaluation is attached at
Exhibit C .
The Chief, BCMR & SSB Section, HQ AFPC/DPPPA, also evaluated the
case and states that AFI 36-2403 states that periods of 30 or
more consecutive [emphasis advisory's] calendar days during which
the ratee did not perform normal duties under the rater's
supervision should be deducted from the total number of days of
supervision. The Chief wishes to draw the Board's attention to
the attached redacted computer printout, which shows the rater's
temporary duty (TDY) schedule during the contested period. Not
one of the rater's TDYs was for 3 0 or more consecutive calendar
days. The applicant has provided nothing from the rater to
support his claim of insufficient supervision. Therefore, this
claim is without basis. The Chief believes that, since the
applicant's two previous EPRs had an overall rating of r15,11 he is
reacting to the Ir4" rating of the contested report. It is not
feasible to compare reports covering different periods of time.
No clarification/explanation is provided by the evaluators. The
Chief concludes the EPR is accurate as written and recommends
denial.
A copy of the complete Air Force evaluation, with attachments, is
at Exhibit D.
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
Applicant reviewed the evaluations and states why he believes the
contested EPR should be voided. He has been unable to get
TDY/leave information under the Freedom of Information Act
(FOIA) .
He believes the negative, low, and unsubstantiated
rating will affect his promotion opportunities.
His complete rebuttal, with attachments, is 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.
2
98-01 530
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 the applicant's
submission, we are not persuaded the contested EPR should be
voided. The applicant's 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. None of the evaluators provides
supporting statements. Further, the rater determines what
accomplishments are to be included in an EPR, and the lack of a
mid-term feedback does not inherently flaw a report. The
applicant has not substantiated his contentions that the report
has insufficient days of supervision or is an inaccurate
assessment of his performance for this particular rating period.
In view of the above and absent persuasive evidence to the
contrary, we find no compelling basis to recommend granting the
relief sought.
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 3 December 1998, under the provisions of AFI
36-2603 :
Mrs. Barbara A. Westgate, Panel Chair
Dr. Gerald B. Kauvar, Member
Ms. Rita J. Maldonado, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 26 May 98, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPPWB, dated 10 Jun 98.
Exhibit D. Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPPA, dated 15 Jun 98.
Exhibit E. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 29 Jun 98.
&&6t& BARBARA A. ddATL
WESTGAT
Panel Chair
3
98-0 1530
A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit C. The Chief, Appeals & SSB Branch, AFPC/DPPPA, also reviewed this application and indicated that while the applicant contends that he did not receive his two feedbacks during the contested period, they note that the rater indicates in Section V (Rater’s Comments) that feedbacks were conducted on 25 Sep 96 and 6 Mar 97. Air Force policy is that an evaluation report is accurate as written when it becomes a matter of record...
Noting the rater’s statement of support, DPPPA stated the rater indicates he decided to change his evaluation and overall rating based on “performance feedback that was not available during the time of her rating considerations and post discussions with one of her past supervisors.” The rater has not stated what he knows now that he did not know when the original EPR was prepared. Applicant’s complete response is at Exhibit...
In support of her appeal, the applicant provided a personal statement, an Inspector General (IG) Summary Report of Investigation, copies of the contested report and performance feedback worksheets, and other documents associated with the matter under review. The applicant did not provide any information/support from the rating chain on the contested EPR. A complete copy of the DPPPAB evaluation is at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S...
_________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Enlisted Promotion and Military Testing Branch, AFPC/DPPPWB, reviewed this application and indicated that should the closeout date be changed from 11 Mar 97 to 7 Oct 96, it would be eligible to be used in the promotion process for the 97E7 cycle (promotions effective Aug 97 - Jul 98). A complete copy of the DPPPAB evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-00772
In support of his request, the applicant submits a copy of the Evaluation Reports Appeal Board (ERAB) denial letter dated 10 January 2003, a copy of the contested EPR, a copy of the referral EPR notification, a copy of supporting statements from his raters and additional rater, a copy of his TDY voucher, and his letter concerning his former commander. The applicant submitted an appeal to the Evaluation Reports Appeal Board (ERAB) in December 2002 requesting his EPR for the period 12 May...
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...
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. 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. BASIS FOR REQUEST: Applicant bases this...
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 01-00107 INDEX CODE: 111.02 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ___________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: The level of review in Section VIII of his Enlisted Performance Report (EPR), closing 18 Aug 98, be upgraded to reflect Senior Rater’s indorsement. The Director, Air Force Review Boards Agency accepted the recommendation by the Board...
AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Chief, Inquiries/AFBCMR Section, AFPC/DPPPAB, reviewed this application and indicated that the first time the contested report was considered in the promotion process was cycle 95E7 to master sergeant (promotions effective Aug 95 - Jul 96). A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit C. The Chief, BCMR & SSB Section, AFPC/DPPPA, also reviewed this application and indicated that, although the applicant provides a copy of an unsigned draft EPR...
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.