RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 98-03025
INDEX CODE: 111.02
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
The Enlisted Performance Reports (EPR) closing 19 Mar 97 and 25 Jul 97
be declared void and removed from his records.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
The EPR closing 19 Mar 97 was written in retaliation against him
because he successfully appealed the punishment portion of an Article
15.
The rater of the EPR closing 25 Jul 97 was biased by the previous
report.
In support of his appeal, the applicant provided copies of the
contested reports, and a copy of his AFI 36-2401 appeal application,
which included supportive statements from individuals outside of his
rating chain.
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
staff sergeant, having been promoted to that grade on 1 Aug 88.
Applicant's APR/EPR profile since 1988 follows:
PERIOD ENDING EVALUATION
15 Apr 88 9
16 Jun 89 9
11 Jul 90 4 (EPR)
11 Jul 91 3
26 Nov 92 4
18 Jul 93 4
1 Apr 94 4
19 Mar 95 5
19 Mar 96 5
* 19 Mar 97 2 (referral)
* 25 Jul 97 3
* Contested reports.
On 22 Jan 97, the applicant received nonjudicial punishment under
Article 15 for making comments of a sexual nature. He was reduced
from the grade of staff sergeant to senior airman. The applicant
appealed the punishment and it was granted. The reduction to the
grade of senior airman was suspended until 18 Aug 97, after which time
it would be remitted.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
The Enlisted Promotions and Military Testing Branch, AFPC/DPPPWB,
reviewed this application and indicated that should the contested
report be voided or upgraded, providing he is otherwise eligible, the
applicant would be entitled to supplemental promotion consideration
beginning with cycle 98E6. According to DPPPWB, the applicant would
become a selectee during cycle 98E6 if the requests are granted.
A complete copy of the DPPPWB evaluation is at Exhibit C.
The Appeals and SSB Branch, AFPC/DPPPA, reviewed this application and
recommended denial. According to DPPPA, the applicant has not proven
the EPR closing 19 Mar 97 was written in retaliation against him by
his commander. The EPR is not inaccurate or unjust simply because the
applicant believes it is. An opinion is not evidence.
Concerning the EPR closing 25 Jul 97, DPPPA noted the applicant’s
contention that the 25 Jul 97 EPR was biased against him and was
influenced by the comments on his previous EPR. However, DPPPA
indicated that the applicant did not provide any statements from his
evaluators or other sources with first-hand knowledge to prove the
alleged discrimination occurred. Therefore, DPPPA believes the EPR is
accurate as written.
A complete copy of the DPPPA evaluation is at Exhibit D.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to applicant on 28
Dec 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. 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. We
have noted the documents provided with the applicant’s submission.
However, they do not, in our opinion, support a finding that the
evaluators were unable to render unbiased evaluations of the
applicant’s performance or that the ratings on the contested reports
were based on factors other than applicant’s duty performance during
the contested rating periods. In this regard, we believe it is
significant that, upon appeal, the group commander remitted the
punishment but allowed the Article 15 itself to stand. In view of the
foregoing, and in the absence of evidence indicating the evaluators
based their assessments on erroneous information, we find no
compelling basis to recommend favorable action on applicant’s request
that the contested reports be voided and removed from his records.
_________________________________________________________________
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 1 Jul 99, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:
Mr. Terry A. Yonkers, Panel Chair
Mr. Joseph A. Roj, Member
Mr. Grover L. Dunn, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 27 Oct 98, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPPPWB, dated 1 Dec 98.
Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/DPPPA, dated 9 Dec 98.
Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 28 Dec 98.
TERRY A. YONKERS
Panel Chair
AF | BCMR | CY1999 | BC-1998-01229
DPPPA further states that an evaluation report is considered to represent the rating chain’s best judgment at the time it is rendered and once a report is accepted for file, only strong evidence to the contrary warrants correction or removal from an individual’s record. 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. Exhibit E. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 13 Jul 98.
DPPPA further states that an evaluation report is considered to represent the rating chain’s best judgment at the time it is rendered and once a report is accepted for file, only strong evidence to the contrary warrants correction or removal from an individual’s record. 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. Exhibit E. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 13 Jul 98.
Both the commander and the indorser provide information on why although they originally supported the rating given the applicant, later determined that it was not a fair or objective evaluation. The complete evaluation is at Exhibit D. _______________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant responded to the Air Force evaluations. Exhibit F. Memorandum, Applicant, dated 15 Nov 01.
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...
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 99-00944 INDEX CODE: 111.02 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: The Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) he has provided, rendered for the period 2 Jul 95 through 27 Nov 95, be added to his official personnel record. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE...
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 98-03333 INDEX CODE: 111.02 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: The Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) rendered for the period 24 February 1995 through 11 June 1996 be declared void and removed from his records, or as an alternative, upgrade the report. They point out that while it is true a...
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. ...
In support of his request, the applicant submits a personal statement, copies of his AFI 36-2401 application, the Evaluations Reports Appeal Board (ERAB) decision, a statement from his indorser and additional documents associated with the issues cited in his contentions. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Enlisted Promotion and Military Testing Branch, HQ AFPC/DPPPWB, stated that the first time the contested report was considered in...
After reviewing the supporting documentation submitted by the applicant, we believe that some doubt exists as to whether the rater and indorser were biased in their assessment of applicant’s performance due to a possible personality conflict between the applicant and these evaluators. Further, the statement from the applicant’s former commander, during a portion of the contested time period, reveals that personalities possibly played a part in the ratings on the contested report. TERRY A....
On 2 May 1996, a Medical Evaluation Board (MEB) convened at the request of the First Sergeant to determine the effects of the applicant's knee problems on his progress in the Weight Management Program (WMP). The applicant was ineligible for promotion consideration to the grade of master sergeant during cycle 9737 since his Weight Status Code indicated unsatisfactory progress in the WMP, on or after the Promotion Eligibility Cutoff Date (PECOD) . The applicant was originally rejected for...