RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 98-00238
INDEX NUMBER: 111.02; 111.05
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
___________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
The Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) closing 2 June 1996 be removed
from his record.
___________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
Blatant discrimination was encountered in some instances. Poor race
relations affected his performance because productivity is the primary
tool used in evaluating recruiter performance.
In support of his request, applicant provided a copy of his AFI 36-
2401 appeal package, which included the contested report, various
newspaper articles, documentation pertaining to Chesterfield County
Public Schools and Chesterfield County Demographic and Economic
Profile, notes pertaining to his visits to schools, and documentation
pertaining to his permanent change of assignment between Richmond
Downtown and Richmond Southside, and production evaluation feedbacks.
(Exhibit A)
___________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
Information extracted from the Personnel Data System (PDS) reflects
applicant’s Total Active Federal Military Service Date (TAFMSD) as
25 June 1986. He is currently serving on active duty in the grade of
staff sergeant.
A resume of applicant’s APRs/EPRs follows:
PERIOD CLOSING OVERALL EVALUATION
29 Sep 88 9
29 Sep 89 9
17 Apr 90 (EPR) 5
18 Jan 91 5
18 Jan 92 5
18 Jan 93 5
18 Jan 94 5
14 Aug 94 5
14 Aug 95 5
* 2 Jun 96 3
2 Jun 97 5
2 Jun 98 5
* Contested report. A similar appeal submitted under the provisions
of AFI 36-2401 was denied by the Evaluation Report Appeal Board (ERAB)
on 17 November 1997.
___________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
The Enlisted Promotion Branch, AFPC/DPPPWB, provided comments
addressing supplemental promotion consideration. Should the Board
void the contested report in its entirety, or upgrade the overall
rating, providing he is otherwise eligible, the applicant will be
entitled to supplemental promotion consideration beginning with cycle
97E6. The applicant will not become a selectee during cycle 97E6 if
the Board grants his request. The subject report will not be
considered again in the promotion process until cycle 98E6. (Exhibit
C)
The BCMR and SSB Section, AFPC/DPPPAB, reviewed this application and
recommended denial. DPPPAB noted applicant presented numerous
articles and documents concerning the racial issues being faced by the
community. However, he has not substantiated how these issues
affected his EPR. For instance, DPPPAB does not understand how the
racial issues affected the areas rated in items 3, 4 and 5 of Section
III of the contested report. DPPPAB questions how racial tensions
affect: “Ratee’s compliance with standards of dress and appearance
(weight and fitness, customs, and courtesies) (Sec III, item 3);
“Ratee’s conduct on/off duty (financial responsibility, respect for
authority, support for organizational activities and maintenance of
government facilities)” (Sec III, item 4); and, “Ratee’s ability to
supervise, lead (sets and enforces standards, displays initiative and
self-confidence, provides guidance and feedback, and fosters
teamwork)” (Sec III, item 5).
DPPPAB stated it is imperative to hear from the evaluators of the
report in order to properly evaluate the applicant’s contentions. The
mere fact they approved his transfer to a new recruiting territory
does not substantiate that his allegations concerning the report are
valid.
The complete evaluation is at Exhibit D.
___________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on
16 February 1998 for review and comment 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. By regulation,
evaluators are tasked with the responsibility of assessing a ratee’s
performance, honestly and to the best of their ability, based on their
observance of an individual’s performance. We have noted the
documents provided by the applicant. However, these documents do not,
in our opinion, support a finding that the evaluators, who were also
the evaluators on his prior report, were unable to render unbiased
evaluations of the applicant’s performance or that the ratings on the
contested report were based on factors other than the applicant’s duty
performance during the contested rating period. Nor did we find any
evidence showing that the alleged poor race relations in the
surrounding community directly affected the applicant’s duty
performance and ultimately the ratings on the contested report. In
view of the foregoing, and in the absence of evidence to the contrary,
we conclude that there is no basis upon which to recommend favorable
action on the applicant’s request.
___________________________________________________________________
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 6 October 1998, under the provisions of AFI 36-
2603:
Mr. Michael P. Higgins, Panel Chair
Ms. Ann L. Heidig, Member
Mr. Steven A. Shaw, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 22 Jan 98, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPPPWB, dated 30 Jan 98.
Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/DPPPAB, dated 25 Feb 98.
Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 16 Feb 98.
MICHAEL P. HIGGINS
Panel Chair
For instance, DPPPAB does not understand how the racial issues affected the areas rated in items 3, 4 and 5 of Section III of the contested report. However, these documents do not, in our opinion, support a finding that the evaluators, who were also the evaluators on his prior report, were unable to render unbiased evaluations of the applicant’s performance or that the ratings on the contested report were based on factors other than the applicant’s duty performance during the contested...
AF | BCMR | CY1999 | BC-1998-01248
In his proposed AFI 36-2401 appeal, applicant contends that his key duties, task and responsibilities were inaccurate; he should not have been rated by another staff sergeant; the statements by the evaluators are incorrect; and his supervision should not have allowed the unsubstantiated and badly written EPR to be entered in his permanent record. In support of his appeal, applicant provided a copy of Summary Report of Investigation, with his rebuttal comments; a proposed appeal package for...
In his proposed AFI 36-2401 appeal, applicant contends that his key duties, task and responsibilities were inaccurate; he should not have been rated by another staff sergeant; the statements by the evaluators are incorrect; and his supervision should not have allowed the unsubstantiated and badly written EPR to be entered in his permanent record. In support of his appeal, applicant provided a copy of Summary Report of Investigation, with his rebuttal comments; a proposed appeal package for...
_________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Enlisted Promotion Branch, HQ AFPC/DPPPWB, stated that the first time the contested report was considered in the promotion process was Cycle 97E6 to technical sergeant (E-6), promotions effective Aug 97 - Jul 98. It is noted that the applicant will become a selectee for promotion during this cycle if the Board grants his request, pending a favorable data verification check and the recommendation of...
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...
(Exhibit A) ___________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: Information extracted from the Personnel Data System (PDS) reflects applicant’s Total Active Federal Military Service Date (TAFMSD) as 5 January 1988. However, the applicant will not become a selectee during this cycle if the Board grants his request. The complete evaluation is at Exhibit D. ___________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE...
Therefore, DPPPAB recommended the Board direct the removal of the mid-term feedback date from the contested EPR and add the following statement: “Ratee has established that no mid-term feedback session was provided in accordance with AFI 36-2403.” A complete copy of this evaluation is appended at Exhibit D. APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to applicant on 10 Sep 99 for review and response. The mid-term feedback date be removed...
_________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Chief, Inquiries/AFBCMR Section, Enlisted Promotion & Military Testing Branch, HQ AFPC/DPPPWB, reviewed this application and states that the first time the contested report was considered in the promotion process was cycle 95E6 to technical sergeant (promotions effective August 95 - July 1996). A complete copy of the evaluation is attached at Exhibit C. The Chief, Promotion, Evaluation and...
Applicant contends his supervisor rendered the contested 3 March 1994 report in reprisal against him and requests the Board remove the report from his record. While the applicant has provided a statement from his former supervisor who states that a recommendation package was submitted, we are not persuaded that his former supervisor had the authority to submit an award recommendation or that the applicant was eligible for an award at the time his supervisor went PCS. If supplemental...
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...