RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 98-01677
INDEX CODE: 111.02
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) rendered for the period 23 Aug
94 through 9 Apr 95 be declared void and removed from his records.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
His indorser physically and mentally harassed him on the job; a
personality conflict existed between him and the indorser; he was not
provided performance feedback; he was not provided adequate training;
his indorser based her assessment of his duty performance and
promotion potential on a single incident; and the reviewing commander
was not in a position to physically observe his performance.
In support of his appeal, the applicant provided copies of his AFI 36-
2603 applications and supporting documentation.
Applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
Information extracted from the personnel data system (PDS) reflects
that the applicant is currently serving on active duty in the grade of
technical sergeant, having been promoted to that grade on 1 Apr 94.
Applicant's APR/EPR profile since 1987 follows:
PERIOD ENDING EVALUATION
12 Jun 87 9
11 Jan 88 9
3 Jan 89 9
3 Jan 90 5 (EPR)
3 Jan 91 5
31 Jul 91 5
31 Jul 92 5
5 Apr 93 5
22 Aug 93 5
22 Aug 94 5
* 9 Apr 95 4
9 Apr 96 5
9 Apr 97 5
9 Apr 98 5
* Contested report.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
The Enlisted Promotion Branch, AFPC/DPPPWB, reviewed this application
and indicated that should the report be voided or upgraded, providing
he is otherwise eligible, the applicant would be entitled to
supplemental promotion consideration beginning with cycle 96E7. The
applicant would not become a selectee during cycles, 96E7, 97E7, or
98E7 if the request is granted.
A complete copy of the DPPPWB evaluation is at Exhibit C.
The BCMR and SSB Section, AFPC/DPPPAB, reviewed this application and
addressed the applicant’s various assertions. In their view, the main
focus of the applicant is on the conduct of the indorser. However, in
their view, he conveniently glossed over his own conduct which
resulted in the contested EPR. DPPPAB also noted that the basis of
his initial appeal of the contested report was a personality conflict
between he and his rater, yet the rater gave him a “5” promotion
recommendation. Based on the lack of evidence provided, DPPPAB
recommended denial of the appeal.
A complete copy of the DPPPAB evaluation is at Exhibit D.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to applicant on 3
Aug 98 for review and response. As of this date, no response has been
received by this office (Exhibit E).
_________________________________________________________________
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 took notice of the
applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of the case,
including the statements from the individuals outside his rating
chain. We note that evaluators are required to assess a ratee’s
performance, honestly and to the best of their ability, based on their
observance of an individual’s performance. After a thorough review of
the available evidence, we are not convinced that the applicant’s
evaluators were unable to render unbiased evaluations of his
performance or that the ratings on the contested report were based on
factors other than applicant’s duty performance during the contested
rating period. In view of the above, and in the absence of clear-cut
evidence that the contested report was an inaccurate depiction of the
applicant’s performance at the time it was rendered, we conclude that
no basis exists 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 8 Jul 99, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:
Ms. Charlene M. Bradley, Panel Chair
Mr. Joseph A. Roj, Member
Ms. Sophie A. Clark, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 15 Jun 98, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPPPWB, dated 1 Jul 98.
Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/DPPPAB, dated 20 Jul 98.
Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 3 Aug 98.
CHARLENE M.BRADLEY
Panel Chair
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...
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...
AF | BCMR | CY1999 | BC-1998-00968
_________________________________________________________________ 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 97E7 to master sergeant (promotions effective Aug 97 - Jul 98). While the applicant provided two letters from his rater who claims that she was coerced by her superiors and changed her evaluation of the applicant’s duty performance...
_________________________________________________________________ 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 97E7 to master sergeant (promotions effective Aug 97 - Jul 98). While the applicant provided two letters from his rater who claims that she was coerced by her superiors and changed her evaluation of the applicant’s duty performance...
Applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A. A complete copy of the DPPPAB evaluation is at Exhibit D. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Applicant indicated that he is providing all the applicable documents concerning his request to have the contested report corrected. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: The pertinent military records of the Department of...
In his opinion, the applicant’s request for removal of the contested reports should be accomplished to correct an injustice of circumstances (Exhibit C). The Chief, Inquiries/AFBCMR Section, HQ AFPC/DPPPWB, stated that the first time the contested reports were considered in the promotion process was Cycle 96E7 to master sergeant (E-7), promotions effective Aug 96 - Jul 97. Exhibit C. Letter, AFBCMR Medical Consultant, dated 17 Jun 98.
AF | BCMR | CY1998 | BC-1998-00978
In his opinion, the applicant’s request for removal of the contested reports should be accomplished to correct an injustice of circumstances (Exhibit C). The Chief, Inquiries/AFBCMR Section, HQ AFPC/DPPPWB, stated that the first time the contested reports were considered in the promotion process was Cycle 96E7 to master sergeant (E-7), promotions effective Aug 96 - Jul 97. Exhibit C. Letter, AFBCMR Medical Consultant, dated 17 Jun 98.
In his opinion, the applicant’s request for removal of the contested reports should be accomplished to correct an injustice of circumstances (Exhibit C). The Chief, Inquiries/AFBCMR Section, HQ AFPC/DPPPWB, stated that the first time the contested reports were considered in the promotion process was Cycle 96E7 to master sergeant (E-7), promotions effective Aug 96 - Jul 97. Exhibit C. Letter, AFBCMR Medical Consultant, dated 17 Jun 98.
In support of his appeal, the applicant provided a personal statement, copies of several of his EPRs, a statement from the rater and indorser of the contested report, and other documentation relating to his appeal. A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit C. The Chief, BCMR & SSB Section, AFPC/DPPPAB, also reviewed this application and indicated that the applicant was involved in an off- duty domestic incident during the time the contested EPR was being finalized. ...
_________________________________________________________________ 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...