AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

IN THE MATTER OF: 

DOCKET NUMBER:  98-01638 

COUNSEL:  NONE 

HEARING DESIRED:  NO 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

The  Enlisted  Performance  Report  (EPR) rendered  for  the  period 
1 August 1996 through 31  July 1997, be declared void and replaced 
with the reaccomplished report. 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

The  appropriate  rater  did  not  properly  prepare  and  sign  the 
contested  EPR,  nor  has  he  had  a  formal  feedback  session  since 
1989. 

In support of  his  appeal he  submits letters from the rater and 
the rater's  rater. 

The rater's  rater stated due to his lack of knowledge of  the PC- 
I11  updating  system  the  applicant  changed  reporting  officials 
( C R O )   to the incorrect rater.  This disparity was only recently 
discovered,  and  should be  corrected.  He  understands  that  as  a 
commander he should have caught this sooner, and did not realize 
the repercussions of this mistake.  He request the contested EPR 
be  rescinded  and  replaced  with  the  reaccomplished  EPR  which 
accurately reflects applicant's  position and responsibilities. 

The  rater  stated he  was wrong  to  sign as the rater.  He  should 
have  insisted  that  the  commander  sign  as  the  rater  since  the 
applicant was  reporting directly  to him.  He  offers no excuses 
other  than  that  he  was  transitioning  from  active  duty  to 
retirement, and he signed the EPR  while on terminal leave. 
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 master sergeant. 

98-01638 

The applicant appealed the contested report under the provisions 
of AFI 36-2401 and the appeal was considered and denied twice by 
the Evaluation Reports Appeal Board  (ERAB). 

EPR profile since 1992 reflects the following: 

-

-

 

PERIOD ENDING 
24 Apr 92 
1 Mar 93 
1 Mar 94 
25 Nov 94 
25 Nov  95 
31 Jul 96 
*  31 Jul 97 
31 Jul 98 

*  Contested report. 

AIR  FORCE EVALUATION: 

OVERALL EVALUATION 

5 
5 
5 
5 
5 
5 
5 
5 

The  Chief,  Inquiries/AFBCMR  Section,  Enlisted  Promotion  & 
Military  Testing  Branch,  HQ  AFPC/DPPPWB,  reviewed  this 
application  and  states  that  the  first  time  the  report  was 
considered for promotion was cycle 97E9 to chief master  sergeant 
(promotion effective January 1998 -  December 1998).  Should  the 
Board  void  the  report  in  its  entirety,  or  replace  it  with  the 
report  the  applicant  provided  if  otherwise  eligible,  the 
supplemental  promotion 
applicant 
consideration  beginning  with  cycle  97E9. 
They  defer  their 
recommendation to AFPC/DPPPAB. 

entitled 

to 

will 

be 

A complete copy of the evaluation is attached at Exhibit C. 

The Chief, BCMR and SSB Section, Directorate of Personnel Program 
Management,  HQ  AFPC/DPPPAB,  also  reviewed  this  application  and 
states  that  the  applicant  contends  the  rater  who  prepared  the 
contested report made his decision to retire almost as soon as he 
signed into the squadron, and  for all  intents and purposes,  the 
applicant states he  reported directly  to  the  squadron commander 
(rater's  rater)  on  the  original  report. 
The  applicant  also 
states he  and  the  rater occupied  the  same position  and  carried 
the same duty title.  He further states the rater "was briefed on 
most  issues  concerning  the  unit ... None  of  us  were  permitted  to 
attend  the  Chief's  Group  meeting  or  to  have  input  into  the 
decision making  process  at  that  level.  We  work more  as  a  team 
for the good of the unit during his waning months."  It is their 
contention that since the rater was required to be  in attendance 
at  the  meetings  and  later  back-brief  the  applicant,  it  is 
apparent the applicant had to have reported to the rater in some 
capacity, however small that capacity was. 

2 

98- 01638 

In  the  letter  of  support,  dated  18  December  1997,  from  the 
squadron  commander  (rater's  rater),  he  states  it  was  his 
intention  to  have  the  applicant's  reporting  status  changed  to 
report to him, but due to confusion, the  applicant was  assigned 
to  report  to  the  rater  (chief master  sergeant  [CMSgt]) -  _They, 
note,  however,  the  squadron  commander  indorsed  the  contested 
report.  They question why  the commander did not challenge this 
matter  prior  to  the  contested EPR  becoming  a matter  of  record. 
They  also  note,  applicant  has  not  provided  a  copy  of  the  EPR 
shell  that  was  generated  when  the  contested  EPR  was  to  be 
accomplished.  An  EPR  shell is  usually prepared  well  enough  in 
advance of the closeout date to make any changes in the personnel 
data  system  (PDS) .  These  changes could  have  been  incorporated 
into the contested report. 

The applicant takes exception to the fact that his duty title on 
the contested report is the same as the rater's  duty title.  They 
note on the reaccomplished version of the EPR,  a new duty title 
has  been  used  which  has  not  been  explained  by  either  the 
applicant, the rater, or the rater's  rater.  The personnel data 
system  (PDS) does not  reflect the new duty title which  suggests 
there  is  no  documentation  to  support  this  change. 
The  PDS 
reflects  the  duty  title  as  it  appears  on  the  original  report. 
The  rater's  comments  on  the  reaccomplished EPR  are  completely 
different from that of the original EPR. 
The applicant has not 
provided  a  statement from the new  rater's  rater  (reaccomplished 
EPR) .  It is not  known if this individual was  the rater's  rater 
when the original contested EPR  was prepared.  The indorser on 
both  the contested EPR  and the reaccomplished  report  remain the 
same,  this  individual  is  likewise  not  heard  from.  They  would 
like  to  know  why  the  indorser  has  completely  rewritten  his 
comments. 
None  of  the  supporters  of  the  applicant's  appeal 
explain how they were hindered from rendering a fair and accurate 
assessment of the applicant's  performance prior  to the reporting 
made a matter of record. 

The  applicant  contends  he  has  not  had  a  performance  feedback 
session  since  1989.  Even  though  he  states  feedback is  a  non- 
issue. 
The  applicant  does  not  state  whether  he  requested  a 
feedback  session  from his  rater, nor  does  he  state he  notified 
the rater or the rater's  rater when the required feedback session 
did not  take place.  They note on the reaccomplished version of 
the EPR  with a new evaluator's  signature that the same feedback 
dates  that  were  on  the  original  report  have  once  again  been 
repeated.  By the applicant's  own admission, he was never given a 
performance feedback by either the rater on the contested report 
or by the new rater on the reaccomplished report on either of the 
In their opinion, 
dates identified on both versions of the EPR. 
this borders  of  falsification of  an official document, and  they 
believe the rater of the reaccomplished report should be required 
to explain the basis for certifying he conducted feedback on the 
dates reflected. 

3 

98- 01638 

If the AFBCMR  finds in favor of the applicant, they believe  the 
duty  title  should  remain  the  same  as  that  on  the  original 
contested report since no explanation has been provided as to why 
the duty title has been changed.  They do not believe the AFBCMR 
should  take  any  action  on  this  appeal until  all  of  the  issues 
addressed  above  have  been  resolved;  i. e.,  an  explanation 
regarding  the  different  duty  title,  a  statement  from  the  new 
rater's  rater, and a  statement from the indorser explaining why 
he  felt it necessary to rewrite his  comments.  If the applicant 
is able to obtain this information, we would once again like the 
opportunity to review and comment. 

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

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS: 

Copies of the Air  Force evaluations were  forwarded to applicant 
on 20 July  1998 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. 

2.  The application was timely filed. 

3.  Insufficient  relevant  evidence  has  been  presented  to 
demonstrate the existence of probable error or injustice.  After 
reviewing  applicant's  appeal,  the Air  Force  has  indicated  that 
there  are  many  unanswered  questions  as  to  whether  or  not  the 
applicant's  allegations are true.  The applicant was  provided  a 
copy of this evaluation and did not provide a response.  We have 
reviewed the evidence submitted and also share the same concerns 
as  stated by  the Air  Force.  In view  of  the above  findings, we 
agree with  the  opinion and  recommendation of  the Air  Force  and 
adopt  their  rationale as  the  basis  for our  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 in this 
application. 

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 

4 

98-01638 

upon  the 
considered with this application. 

submission  of  newly  discovered  relevant  evidence  not 

The following members of the Board considered this applicatipn in 
Executive Session on 15 October 1998, under the provisions of AFI 
36-2603: 

Mr. Robert D. Stuart, Panel Chair 
Mr. Henry Romo Jr., Member 
Mr. Richard A. Peterson, Member 

The following documentary evidence was considered: 

Exhibit A. 
Exhibit B. 
Exhibit C. 
Exhibit D. 
Exhibit E. 

DD Form 149, dated 11 June 1998, w/atchs. 
Applicant's Master Personnel Records. 
Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPPWB, dated 25 June 1998. 
Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPPAB, dated 8 July 1998. 
Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 20 July 1998. 

ROBERT D. STUART 
Panel Chair 

5