RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 98-02419
COUNSEL: NONE
INDEX CODE: 111.02
HEARING DESIRED: NO
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
The Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) rendered for the period 15 October
1995 through 14 October 1996 be declared void and removed from his record.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
The contested report is a bias evaluation of his performance based on the
position of his supervisor who was also the first sergeant.
He states that during this period, he initiated divorce proceedings in
January 1995 and finalized the divorce in August 1996. There were legal
actions that had to be executed which he believes were perceived as poor
duty performance on his part. The first sergeant, his supervisor, had to
be involved based on his position. The first sergeant became his
supervisor for this period when traditionally the NCOIC, Unit
Administration, was always supervised by the squadron section commander.
Before this period, 15 October 1995 -14 October 1996, and after this
period, he was supervised by the squadron section commander. The sudden,
unexplained switch from squadron section commander to first sergeant and
back to squadron section commander led to his strong belief that his
evaluation for this period was biased. The 48th Security Forces Squadron
was never without a squadron section commander during the period September
1994 to 5 August 1997. He would also call attention to the huge disparity
between ratings of the two EPRs written by the squadron section commanders
and the one written by the first sergeant. In particular, notice the
ratings in items 2,3,4, and 6 as written by the squadron section commanders
versus the same rating given by the first sergeant.
He does not believe his performance went from the very top ratings to
nearly the bottom ratings and back to the top ratings. These similar
ratings were given by two different persons; two different squadron
sections commanders. Please note that his divorce proceedings started
before this evaluation period (15 October 1995 to 14 October 1996) and that
that should not be justification for this evaluation or mysterious change
of supervisors. He is currently the NCOIC, Commander’s Support Staff and
he is being supervised by the squadron section commander. As part of their
role as first sergeants, first sergeants exercises general supervision over
all unit enlisted personnel. They are also charged with representing the
interest of enlisted personnel to the unit commander. If first sergeants
directly supervise specific individuals, the concepts of general
supervision and representing the interest of enlisted personnel are eroded
and in time the first sergeant’s position will be compromised.
In support of the appeal, applicant submits copies of the contested
reports, a copy of a Notice of Entry of Judgment; and a copy of a
memorandum to an attorney.
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
technical sergeant.
EPR profile since 1991 reflects the following:
PERIOD ENDING EVALUATION OF POTENTIAL
31 May 91 5
19 Feb 92 5
31 Jul 92 5
22 May 93 5
22 May 94 5
22 May 95 5
14 Oct 95 5
*14 Oct 96 4
16 Jul 97 5
30 May 98 5
*Contested report
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
The Chief, BCMR and SSB Section, AFPC/DPPPAB, reviewed this application and
states that the applicant has failed to provide any information or support
from the rating chain on the contested EPR. In the absence of information
from evaluators, official substantiation of error or injustice from the
Inspector General (IG) or Social Actions is appropriate, in this case it is
not provided.
In reference to the applicant stating that his rater showed bias to him
because of the legal actions he executed during the reporting period, they
state that he has provided nothing to prove the report is invalid other
than his own opinion of the events during the reporting period. They state
while the final statement in Section V, RATER’S COMMENTS, of the 14 October
1996 report mentions counseling the applicant on prioritizing, following up
on open actions, and improving communication with key customers and
participants, it does not mention that his lack of performance was the
result of the time he spent on personal legal matters. They point out, a
statement from his rater and subsequent evaluators confirming the legal
matters affected their judgment could confirm if the time the applicant
spent taking care of personal matters detracted from his overall
performance and caused them to give him a “4” promotion recommendation in
Section IV, PROMOTION RECOMMENDATION. They understand the applicant’s
desire to have an EPR removed from his records because of the promotion
advantage; however, the EPR is not unjust simply because he believes it is.
The applicant contends the contested 14 October 1996 EPR is inconsistent
with previous and subsequent performance. Furthermore, he is trying to
convince them his rater (his First Sergeant) was unable to rate him
effectively in comparison to the squadron section commanders who evaluated
him on his previous and subsequent report. They point out the same
indorser indorsed both the 14 October 1995 and 14 October 1996 reports.
They state it is apparent the contested EPR documents a period of decreased
duty performance. They also state, 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 subsequent performance.
In reference to the applicant stating that if First Sergeants directly
supervise specific individuals, the concepts of general supervision and
representing the interest of enlisted personnel are eroded and in time, the
First Sergeant’s position will be compromised. They state that it is
apparent the unit commander believed the applicant’s First Sergeant could
effectively rate the applicant’s duty performance. Rating chains are
established by unit commanders. In this case, the applicant has not
provided anything from the commander to prove the rating chain was invalid.
Therefore, based on the evidence provided, they recommend denial of
applicant's request.
A complete copy of the evaluation 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
97E7.
A complete copy of their evaluation is attached at Exhibit D.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
On 12 October 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
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 26 January 1999, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:
Ms. Rita S. Looney, Panel Chair
Mr. Terry A. Yonkers, Member
Ms. Patricia D. Vestal, Member
Ms. Phyllis L. Spence, Examiner (without vote)
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 14 Aug 98, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPPPAB, dated 22 Sep 98.
Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/DPPPWB, dated 17 Sep 98.
Exhibit E. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 12 Oct 98.
RITA S. LOONEY
Panel Chair
Noting the rater’s statement of support, DPPPA stated the rater indicates he decided to change his evaluation and overall rating based on “performance feedback that was not available during the time of her rating considerations and post discussions with one of her past supervisors.” The rater has not stated what he knows now that he did not know when the original EPR was prepared. Applicant’s complete response is at Exhibit...
EPR profile since 1992 reflects the following: PERIOD ENDING OVERALL EVALUATION 29 Jan 92 5 29 Jan 93 5 14 May 94 5 * 14 May 95 5 14 May 96 5 15 Nov 96 5 15 Nov 97 5 5 Oct 98 5 * Contested report _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Chief, Inquiries/AFBCMR Section, Enlisted Promotion & Military Testing Branch, HQ AFPC/DPPPWB, reviewed this application and states that should the Board replace the report with the closing date of 1 October...
_________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: HQ AFPC/DPPPWB addressed the supplemental promotion consideration issue should the applicant’s request be approved. DPPPWB stated that the first time the contested report was considered in the promotion process was Cycle 97E5 to staff sergeant (E-5), promotions effective Sep 97 - Aug 98. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Having...
In reference to the applicant contending her rater did not directly supervise her for the number of days indicated on the report (140), Air Force policy, AFI 36-2403, paragraph 4.3.9.2, states that 120 days’ supervision are required before accomplishing an EPR, and only TDY or leave periods of 30 consecutive days or more are deducted from the number of days supervision. Therefore, based on the lack of evidence provided, they recommend denial of applicant’s request. Her EPR was written...
AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Chief, Promotion, Evaluation and Recognition Division, Directorate of Personnel Program Management, HQ AFPC/DPPP, reviewed this application and states that the rater of the EPR contends he attempted to submit a reaccomplished version of the EPR on 4 November 1996, but discovered the contested EPR had already became a matter of record. A complete copy of their evaluation is attached at Exhibit D. APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Copies of the Air Force...
DPPPAB stated that the applicant has failed to provide any information/support from the rating chain on the contested EPR. Air Force policy states that only 120 days of supervision are required before accomplishing an EPR; and 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 performance. He did provide evidence with his application that the performance feedback statement is false.
Rather than closing out the report, the commander removed the rater’s name from the reporting official block, assumed the duties of his reporting official, and submitted the report as if he had been his (applicant’s) supervisor for the previous 332 days. However, if the Board recommends removing the report, the applicant will be entitled to supplemental promotion consideration beginning with the 99E8 cycle, provided he is recommended by the commander and is otherwise eligible. A complete...
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...
She also states that she believes the report to be unjust because of the personality conflicts that existed between her, her rater, and her rater’s rater that exploded after she approached the squadron commander about unprofessional practices she observed going on in her workcenter. After reviewing the evidence of record, the Board is convinced that the contested report is not an accurate assessment of applicant's performance during the period in question. DOUGLAS J. HEADY Panel...
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...