RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 98-02613
INDEX CODE: 111.02
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
The Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) rendered for the period 26 April 1993
through 25 April 1994 be declared void and removed from his records and he
be provided supplemental promotion consideration to the grade of technical
sergeant by cycle 95E6.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
Applicant states that there are inconsistencies in Section 3 of the
contested EPR, and the feedback sessions he received. 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. “Prepare, schedule, and conduct feedback
sessions;” 2. “Provide realistic feedback to help the ratee improve
performance.” His supervisor indicated that his performance fell short of
his expectations. This being the case, he should have received additional
feedbacks. He had only received 2 feedbacks during this reporting period.
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.
The applicant filed three similar appeals under AFI 36-2401, Correcting
Officer and Enlisted Performance Reports. The first two appeals were
denied and the third application was returned without action by the
Evaluation Reports Appeal Board (ERAB).
EPR profile since 1992 reflects the following:
PERIOD ENDING EVALUATION OF POTENTIAL
19 Sep 91 4
25 Apr 92 5
25 Apr 93 4
*25 Apr 94 3
25 Apr 95 4
25 Apr 96 4
25 Apr 97 5
25 Sep 97 5
* Contested report.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
The Chief, SSB & BCMR Section, AFPC/DPPPAB, reviewed this application and
states that Air Force policy is that an evaluation report is accurate as
written when it becomes a matter of record. It takes substantial evidence
to the contrary to have a report changed or voided. To effectively
challenge an EPR, it is important to hear from all the members of the
rating chain, not only for support, but for clarification/explanation.
Without statements from the rating chain, it appears the report was
accomplished in direct accordance with applicable regulations. 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
95E6.
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 not timely filed; however, it is in the interest
of justice to excuse the failure to timely file.
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 16 February 1999, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:
Ms. Charlene M. Bradley, Panel Chair
Mr. Mike Novel, Member
Mr. Philip Sheuerman, Member
Ms. Phyllis L. Spence, Examiner (without vote)
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 20 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 24 Sep 98.
Exhibit E. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 2 Nov 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...
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. 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...
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...
_________________________________________________________________ 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...
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...
A personal conflict existed between the rater and herself which with the supporting evidence provided will show that the rating given was unjust. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Chief, BCMR and SSB Section, AFPC/DPPPAB, reviewed this application and states that the applicant provided statements from the indorser and the reviewing commander who states that he admits if he had known the applicant was unaware she was getting a “4” on...
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...
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...
_________________________________________________________________ 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...