RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 98-02393
INDEX CODE: 111.02
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
The Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) rendered for the period 1 April 1996
through 31 March 1997 be declared void and removed from his records.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
The rater was inexperienced in supervising enlisted personnel; there was no
communication from the rater on problem areas; and, there was a conflict of
personality between the rater and himself.
In support of the appeal, applicant submits a personal statement, a
statement from the indorser, and copies of four Performance Feedback
Worksheets.
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
staff sergeant.
The applicant filed a similar appeal under AFI 36-2401, Correcting Officer
and Enlisted Evaluation Reports, which was denied.
EPR profile since 1991 reflects the following:
PERIOD ENDING EVALUATION OF POTENTIAL
31 Mar 91 5
31 Mar 92 5
31 Mar 93 5
31 Mar 94 5
31 Mar 95 5
31 Mar 96 5
*31 Mar 97 4 (“4” from rater
“5” from
indorser; “5”
downgraded to
“4”)
16 Dec 97 5
* Contested report.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
The Chief, SSB & BCMR Section, AFPC/DPPPAB, reviewed this application and
states that to effectively challenge an EPR, it is important to hear from
all the evaluators on the contested report, not only for support, but for
clarification/explanation. In this case, the applicant has failed to
provide any information/support from the other evaluators in the rating
chain on the contested EPR. They further state, in the absence of
information from all the evaluators, official substantiation of error or
injustice from the IG or Social Actions is appropriate.
In reference to the applicant stating that the contested EPR is
inconsistent with previous performance, they state that it is not feasible
to compare one report covering a certain period of time with another report
covering a different period of time. 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 or latter performance. They state as a
matter of note, the same evaluators rated the applicant on the EPR (16
December 1997) rendered after the contested report. He received an overall
“5” on the 16 December 1997 EPR. It is apparent the applicant’s
performance improved after the contested EPR was rendered and was duly
noted. They state that if a personality conflict between the applicant and
the evaluators existed as he claims, they do not believe he would has been
rated an overall “5” on the subsequent (16 December 1997) EPR.
The applicant contends he received positive feedback from his rater during
the reporting period. They state that 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. They further state that the Performance Feedback Worksheet
(PFW) acts as a scale on where the ratee stands in relation to the duty
performance expectations of the rater. Furthermore, a positive feedback
session does not guarantee a firewalled EPR. There is not a direct
correlation between the markings on the PFW and the ratings on an EPR.
In reference to the applicant claiming a personality conflict existed
between him and his rater, they state that it is not uncommon for
disagreements to occur between a rater and ratee. Since a ratee must abide
by a supervisor’s policies and decisions, personnel who do not perform at
expected standards may believe that an evaluator is personally biased or
that a personality conflict exists. Therefore, based on the evidence
provided, they recommend denial of applicant's request.
A copy of the evaluation, without attachments, 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
98E6.
A complete copy of their evaluation is attached at Exhibit D.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
On 2 November 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.
2. The application was timely filed.
3. Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the
existence of probable error or injustice. After reviewing the evidence of
record, we are not persuaded that the applicant’s records are in error or
that he has been the victim of an injustice. Applicant’s contentions, in
our opinion, have been adequately addressed by the appropriate Air Force
offices and we are in agreement with their comments and recommendation. In
this respect, we note that the applicant has not submitted statements from
all of the rating officials or sufficient evidence to support his
allegations. In view of the above determination and in the absence of
evidence to the contrary, we find no basis upon which to recommend
favorable action on 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 25 February 1999, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:
Mr. Henry Romo, Jr., Panel Chair
Ms. Olga M. Crerar, Member
Mr. John E. Pettit, Member
Ms. Phyllis L. Spence, Examiner (without vote)
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 16 Aug 98, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPPPAB, dated 16 Oct 98.
Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/DPPPWB, dated 8 Oct 98.
Exhibit E. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 2 Nov 98.
HENRY ROMO, JR.
Panel Chair
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...
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...
_________________________________________________________________ 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...
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 support of his appeal he submits letters from the rater and the rater's rater. The applicant has not provided a statement from the new rater's rater (reaccomplished EPR) . 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.
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...
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 00-02173 INDEX CODE: 111.02 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) rendered for the period 30 Aug 98 through 29 Aug 99 be declared void and removed from his records. Based on the reason(s) for the referral EPR, the applicant’s commander could very well have...
_________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Chief, Inquiries/AFBCMR Section, Enlisted Promotion & Military Testing Branch, HQ AFPC/DPPPWB, states that the first time the contested report was considered in the promotion process was cycle 96E5 to staff sergeant. The applicant provided a statement from his rater, but failed to provide any information/support from the other members of his rating chain on the contested EPR. A complete copy of the...
A complete copy of the advisory is attached at Exhibit C. The Chief, Awards and Decorations Section, HQ AFPC/DPPPR, reviewed the application for award of the MSM for the period of 2 Jul 97 – 3 Jul 99. It is the supervisor’s responsibility to recommend or not recommend for a decoration upon Permanent Change of Station (PCS). Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
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...