AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

1

4

 

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

IN THE MATTER OF: 

DOCKET NUMBER:  9 8 - 0 1 6 1 5  
COUNSEL:  NONE 

HEARING DESIRED:  NO 

DE'. 

1 1  1998 

APPLICANT REOUESTS THAT: 

The  Enlisted  Performance  Report  (EPR) rendered  for  the  period 
12 November 1 9 9 3   through 11 July 1 9 9 5   be declared void. 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 
The report is inconsistent with the feedbacks dated 1 9   September 
1 9 9 4   and  24  April  1 9 9 5 ,   which  indicated  that  little  or  no 
improvement  was  necessary  to  achieve  a  5  rating.  Supporting 
documents, such as the two quality control reports and numerous 
letters  of  appreciation  include  positive  comments  from  her 
supervisor, SSgt W---, the indorsers of the EPR, and the previous 
commander.  In addition, these documents prove that her superior 
performance  was  consistent  throughout  the  rating  period.  She 
would like to add that she never received a letter of counseling 
or other action that would degrade the rating to a 3 .  
In support of the appeal, applicant submits copies of performance 
feedback worksheets  (PFWs), copies of AF Forms 2419,  Routing and 
Review  of  Quality  Control  Reports,  a  copy  of  the  contested 
report, and several letters of appreciation. 
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 senior airman. 

The applicant appealed the contested report under the provisions 
of  AFI  3 6 - 2 4 0 1 ,   Correcting  Officer  and  Enlisted  Evaluation 
Reports on 28  October 1 9 9 6 .   The appeal was considered and denied 
by the Evaluation Reports Appeal Board  (ERAB). 
EPR profile since 1 9 9 5   reflects the following: 

PERIOD E NDING 

EVALUATION OF POTENTIAL 

98-01 6 15 

*11 Jul 95 
11 Jul 96 
11 Jul 97 
30 Mar 98 

*  Contested report. 

AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

3 
4 
4 
5 

The  Chief,  BCMR  and  SSB  Branch,  AFPC/DPPPAB,  reviewed  this 
application and  states that  applicant  submits nothing  from  the 
rating chain.  They state, while the applicant appears to believe 
she was  guaranteed  higher markings  on her initial EPR  based  on 
her  PFWs,  comments  or  markings  on  a  PFW  do  not  necessarily 
correlate to EPR  ratings.  AFI  36-2401,  paragraph  2-7, states, 
"The PFW represents a private  discussion between  the  rater and 
ratee.  While  it  is not  an official record  of  performance, it 
helps  supervisors provide  helpful  comments  so  that  ratees  can 
improve as needed."  They believe the applicant is attempting to 
relate  the  ratings  on  the  EPR  to  the  markings  on  the  PFW. 
Accordingly,  this  is  an  inappropriate  comparison  and  is 
inconsistent with the Enlisted Evaluation System.  They  further 
state:  (1) 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. 
(2) The  PFW  acts  as  a  scale  on  where  the  ratee 
stands in relation to the performance expectations of the rater. 
They point out that a PFW with all items marked  "needs little or 
no improvement" means the ratee is meeting the rater's standards. 
It  does not guarantee  a  firewalled EPR.  (3) Every  exceptional 
performer does not possess outstanding promotion potential.  They 
state  it  appears  the  applicant's  evaluators  took  their  rating 
responsibilities seriously, and  rated  her  appropriately  in  not 
only their evaluation of her performance but  in their promotion 
recommendation when  they  compared  her  with  others  of  the  same 
grade  and  Air  Force  specialty.  They  also  point  out  that  the 
majority of the letters of appreciation provided by the applicant 
are  for  extra-curricular  events. 
Therefore,  based  on  the 
evidence provided, they recommend denial of applicant's request. 
A complete copy of the evaluation is attached at Exhibit C. 
The  Chief, Inquiries/AFBCMR Section, AFPC/DPPPWB, also  reviewed 
this  application  and  states  that  should  the  Board  void  the 
contested report in its entirety, upgrade the overall rating, or 
make  any  other  significant  change, providing  the  applicant  is 
otherwise  eligible,  the  applicant  will  be  entitled  to 
supplemental promotion consideration commencing with cycle 9835. 

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

98-01615 

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 
On  3  August  1998,  copies  of  the  Air  Force  evaluations  were 
forwarded to applicant for review and  response within  30 days. 
As of this date, no response has been received by this office. 

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT: 

1.  The  applicant  has  exhausted  all  remedies  provided  by 
existing law or regulations. 

The application was timely filed. 

2 .  
3.  Insufficient  relevant  evidence  has  been  presented  to 
demonstrate the existence of probable error or injustice.  The 
applicant has not submitted any supporting documentation from 
the rating chain, nor has she provided sufficient evidence to 
cause  us  to  believe  that  the  report  was  not  an  accurate 
assessment  as  rendered.  In view  of  the  above  findings, we 
agree with  the comments and  recommendations 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  or 
injustice.  Therefore,  in  the  absence  of  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 29 October 1998, under the provisions 
O f   AFI 3 6 - 2 6 0 3 :  

Mr. Vaughn E .   Schlunz, Panel Chair 
Mr. Loren S. Perlstein, Member 
Mr. Terry A. Yonkers, Member 
Ms. Phyllis L. Spence, Examiner (without vote) 

3 

98-01615 

The following documentary evidence was considered: 

Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated  7 Jun 98. 
Exhibit  B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. 
Exhibit  C. Letter, AFPC/DPPPAB, dated 14 J u l   98. 
Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/DPPPWB, dated 29 Jun 98. 
Exhibit E. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 3 Aug 98. 

Panel Chair 

4 

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

HEADQUARTERS  AIR  FORCE  P E R S O N N E L  CENTER 

RANDOLPH  AIR  FORCE  B A S E   TEXAS 

7 9   JUN  I998 

MEMORANDUM FOR  AFPUDPPPAB 

AFBCMR 

FROM: HQ AFPCDPPPWB 

550 C Street West, Ste 9 
Randolph AFB TX  78 150-471 1 

SUBJECT:  Application for Correction of Military Records 

Requested Action.  The applicant is requesting the AFBCMR remove her Enlisted Performance 
Report (EPR) closing 1 1 July 95.  We will address the supplemental promotion consideration 
issue should the request be approved. 

Reason for Request.  The applicant believes the report is inconsistent with feedbacks and 
attached documents prove superior performance was consistent throughout her rating period. 

Facts.  See AFPC/DPPPAB Ltr. 

Discussion.  The first time the report will be considered in the promotion process is cycle 98E5 
to  staff sergeant (promotions effective Sep 98 - Aug 99).  Should the AFBCMR void the report 
in its entirety, or upgrade the overall rating, providing she is otherwise eligible, the applicant will 
be entitled to supplemental promotion consideration beginning with cycle 98E5 providing she is 
not selected during the initial 98E5 cycle.  Promotions for this cycle will be accomplished during 
the Aug 98 time frame. 

Recommendation.  We defer to the recommendation of AFPCDPPPAB. 

DEPARTMENT  O F  THE A I R   FORCE 

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  F O R C E   B A S E  T E X A S  

MEMORANDUM FOR AFBCMR 

FROM:  HQ AFPC/DPPPAB 

550 C Street West Ste 08 
Randolph AFB TX  78 150-471 0 

Requested Action.  Applicant requests the enlisted performance report (EPR) closing 11 Jul 

95 be voided from her records. 

’  Basis for Request.  Applicant states the contested report is inconsistent With performance 

feedback she received during the period covered by the report. 

Recommendation. Deny. 

Facts and Comments: 

a.  The application is timely.  The applicant first appealed the contested report under 

AFI 36-240 1, Correcting Officer and Enlisted Evaluation Reports, on 28 Oct 96.  The Evaluation 
Reports Appeal Board (ERAB) denied her request.  A copy of the memorandum announcing the 
ER4B’s decision is attached for the AFBCMR’s review. 

b.  AFI 36-2403, The Enlisted Evaluation System (EES), 15 July 1994, is the governing 

directive. 

c.  In support of her appeal, the applicant includes copies of performance feedback 

worksheets (PFWs); copies of AF Forms 2419, Routing and Review of Quality Control Reports; 
a copy of the contested EPR; and several letters of appreciation. 

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 as well.  Noticeably 
absent from this package are letters of either support or clarificatiodexplanation from anyone in 
the rating chain of the contested report. 

e.  While the applicant appears to believe she was guaranteed higher markings on her 

initial EPR based on her PFWs, comments or markings on a PFW do not necessarily correlate to 
EPR ratings.  AFI 36-2401, para 2-7, states, “The PFW (Performance Feedback Worksheet) 

represents a private discussion between the rater and ratee.  While it is not an official record of 
performance (emphasis added), it helps supervisors provide helpful comments so that ratees can 
improve as needed.” 

f.  We believe the applicant is attempting to relate the ratings on the EPR to the 

markings on the PFW.  This is an inappropriate comparison and is inconsistent with the EES. 

(1)  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.  Ratings on the PFW are not an absolute indicator of EPR ratings or potential 
for serving in a higher grade. 

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

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 guarantee a firewalled 
EPR.  Also, a ratee who performs current 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 a not a direct correlation between the markings on the PFW and the ratings on an EPR. 

(3)  Every exceptional performer does not possess outstanding promotion potential 

and evaluators need to make that clear on the EPRs they write.  It appears the applicant’s 
evaluators took their rating responsibilities seriously, and rated her appropriately in not only their 
evaluation of her performance but in their promotion recommendation when they compared her 
with others of the same grade and Air Force specialty. 

g.  We believe it is important to point out that the majority of the letters of appreciation 

the applicant provided are for extra-curricular events.  Those which are duty related are appro- 
priately documented in the contested report. 

Summary.  The applicant has not provided proof that she was rated unfairly.  Our 

recommendation of denial is appropriate. 

Attachment: 
HQ AFPCDPPPAE Memo, 14 Nov 96 

Directorate of Pers Program Mgt 

14 Novetllber 1996 

MEMORANDUM FOR 1 MSS/DPMPE 

FROM:  HQ AFPcnDPPPAE 

550 C Street West, Ste 8 
Randolph AFB, TX 78150-4710 

SUBTECT:  AFI 36-2401 Daoieion: 
EPR Closing:  11 Jd95 

The Evaluation Reports Appeal Board (ERAB) denied #e  attached appeal applicStion  The 

B o d  considers an evaluation report to be an accurate assessment when mdmd; therefon?, 
mbstafitinl evidence is required to challenge a report's  accuracy.  As you 
a m ,  the Military 
Petsome1 Flight is responsible for providing members counseling on their application submitted 
under AFI 36-2401.  As such, to assist you in cotmselhg the applicant, this letter providm our 
me88me11f of the applicatioa  We believe the Board wasn't convinced by 
documenlation.  The Board did not find tfte contested =port  to be flawed 0r-e 
must 
point out that feedback is desigaed to provide the mtee a ampshot of how he or aha is doing what 
propso has been made s h e  the laet feedback and what Still needs work  "be EPR, however, 
must assess performance over the entire period covered by the report  f i e  authors of the 
supporting stafemeats are enfitled to their opinion of -peif-oe; 
in superior to that ofthe evaluators.  Statem&  fiom 
thm'r no reason to believe their*& 
membets of the rating chain which provide clear evidence of 8 1 ~ o r  or injustice may strengthen this 
w e .  

however, 

Alter counseling, please provide this letter announcing the Board's  decision to 

She may gather new material evideme and reapply under Am 36-2401, but the original 
dounnentatioa submitted with thin appeal should be included with the new application  While we 
cannot, guarantee a fbvomble decision will rerrutt fim the additid evidence submitted by the 
member, we Will emm the case is processed as fast as possible.  hother avenue waileble to the 
applicant is to appeal under Am 36-2603 to the Air Force Board for Correction of Militmy 
Records. 

Directorate of P m  & M$-