RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 98-01665
INDEX NUMBER: 111.02
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
___________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
The Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) closing 7 July 1997 be voided.
___________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
The contested report is false, misleading, and purposefully written to
place him in a poor light. A personality conflict existed between he
and his evaluators. The report is inconsistent with his previous five
EPRs; it contains an inappropriate duty title; the rater failed to
provide appropriate feedback; and he did not receive the appropriate
training or observation.
In support of his request, applicant provided a copy of his appeal,
submitted under the provisions of AFI 36-2401, to the Evaluation
Report Appeal Board (ERAB). Attachments to the appeal package
included applicant’s expanded comments concerning the contested
report; copies of the contested report, a subsequent report, and two
Performance Feedback Worksheets, dated Jan and Jun 97; documentation
pertaining to his assignment to the HQ USAFE Elite Guard; and
documentation pertaining to training accomplished during contested
rating period and award of the Military Outstanding Volunteer Service
Medal and Air Force Commendation Medal (First Oak Leaf Cluster).
(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. He is currently serving on active duty in the grade
of staff sergeant, with a date of rank of 1 January 1996.
Applicant’s APR/EPR profile follows:
PERIOD CLOSING OVERALL EVALUATION
4 Jan 89 9
4 Sep 89 (EPR) 4
4 Sep 90 4
4 Sep 91 5
4 Sep 92 5
15 May 93 5
7 Jul 94 5
7 Jul 95 5
7 Jul 96 5
* 7 Jul 97 4
15 May 98 5
* Contested report. A similar appeal submitted under the provisions
of AFI 36-2401 was considered and denied by the Evaluation Report
Appeal Board (ERAB) on 28 April 1998.
___________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
The Airman Promotions 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
98E6. However, the applicant will not become a selectee during this
cycle if the Board grants his request. (Exhibit C)
The BCMR and SSB Section, AFPC/DPPPAB, reviewed this application and
recommended denial. Their comments, in part, follow.
Noting the statements from the individuals outside the rating chain,
DPPPAB stated that while these individuals are entitled to their
opinions of the applicant, they (DPPPAB) found no reason to believe
they were in a better position to assess the applicant’s duty
performance during the contested rating period than those specifically
charged with his evaluation. In the absence of information from the
evaluators, official substantiation of error or injustice from the
Inspector General (IG) or Social Actions is appropriate, but not
provided in this case. It appears the contested report was
accomplished in direct accordance with Air Force policy in effect at
the time it was rendered.
Applicant believes his rating chain failed to write an EPR that
accurately portrayed his duty performance. It is not up to the ratee
to determine which accomplishments will appear on an EPR. Rather, it
is the raters responsibility to determine the achievements that will
be reflected on the evaluation report.
Applicant contends the contested EPR is inconsistent with previous
performance. However, 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 reports.
Regarding applicant’s contention that his duty title is incorrect on
the contested report, DPPPAB noted that he failed to provide anything
from the rating chain to prove they erred when they rendered the
report. DPPPAB was not convinced that the duty title on the EPR is
inaccurate.
Applicant contends he was not given appropriate feedback. However, he
provided two performance feedback worksheets dated in Jan and Jun 97
indicating he received at least two feedback sessions during the
reporting period. DPPPAB noted he was cautioned about questionable
respect for authority several times, one of which resulted in a Letter
of Reprimand. Even if the applicant were to prove the performance
feedback he received was inadequate (and they don’t believe he has),
lack of counseling or feedback, by itself, is not sufficient to
challenge the accuracy or justness of a report.
Applicant contends he did not receive adequate training to perform his
duties. The applicant must provide supporting statements from his
rating chain officials who can give specific information about the
training problem and its impact on the EPR. He has not done so.
DPPAB further stated that the applicant failed to provide any official
evidence to prove his evaluators were unable to prepare a fair and
accurate report.
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
14 September 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. We noted applicant's
complete submission in judging the merits of the case. However, in
our opinion, these documents do not support a finding that the
assigned evaluators, who were tasked with the responsibility of
assessing the applicant’s duty performance, were unable to render
unbiased evaluations of his 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. In view of the
foregoing, we agree with the opinion of the Air Force office of
primary responsibility and adopt their findings to support our
conclusion that the applicant has failed to substantiate his
allegations that the contested report is in error or unjust.
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 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 2 March 1999, under the provisions of AFI 36-
2603:
Mrs. Barbara A. Westgate, Panel Chair
Mr. Michael V. Barbino, Member
Mr. Roger E. Willmeth, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 3 May 98, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPPPWB, dated 29 Jul 98.
Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/DPPPAB, dated 28 Aug 98.
Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 14 Sep 98.
BARBARA A. WESTGATE
Panel Chair
He also provided documentation presented with his appeal submitted under the provisions of AFI 36-2401 to the Evaluation Reports Appeal Board (ERAB), which included copies of the contested reports; a Performance Feedback Worksheet, dated 14 Mar 96; documentation associated with a letter of reprimand received during the contested rating period; documentation associated with his training records; and several statements of character reference from co-workers and acquaintances. While...
He also believes the performance feedback worksheet (PFW) does not “mirror” the EPR and his rater based his evaluation “on the moment” and disregarded the Enlisted Evaluation System (EES). _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Chief, Inquiries/AFBCMR Section, AFPC/DPPPWB, reviewed this application and indicated that the first time the report was considered in the promotion process was cycle 98E6 to technical sergeant (promotions...
Regardless, at best, this would be an administrative error and not justification for voiding the report.” While the applicant contends that he was not given feedback during the contested reporting period, only members in the rating chain can confirm if counseling was provided. DPPPAB disagrees and states that AFR 39- 62 (paragraph 2-25) defines a referral report as an EPR with a rating in the far left block of any performance factor in Section III (Evaluation of Performance) and a rating of...
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...
She states that her rater based his evaluation of her duty performance on an isolated part of the rating period; and the contested report is based on the last 120 days of the 20 month reporting period. A complete copy of their evaluation is attached at Exhibit D. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to applicant on 21 December 1998 for review and response within 30...
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...
AFI 36-2403, section 1.1.7.5, states, “Provide scheduled, requested or as needed feedback to help ratees improve their performance.” AFI 36-2403, section 2.8.2.1.3, Raters responsibilities, 1. As of this date, no response has been received by this office. Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/DPPPWB, dated 24 Sep 98.
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. Applicant states the contested report is inconsistent With performance feedback she received during the period covered by the report. It appears the applicant’s evaluators took their rating responsibilities...
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...
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...