RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 98-03450
INDEX CODE: 111.02
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
The Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) rendered for the period 29 May 1997
through 28 May 1998 be declared void and removed from his records.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
The indorser threatened him on an incident with his subordinates and he
made racial comments about blacks and Jews. He does not believe the
indorser had adequate time to evaluate him.
In support of the appeal, applicant submits a copy of the Evaluation
Reports Appeal Board (ERAB)’s decision, a copy of his AF Form 948,
Application for Correction/Removal of Evaluation Reports, a copy of the
contested report, and five reprisals on his EPR to the Appeals Board,
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 a similar appeal under AFI 36-2401, Correcting Officer
and Enlisted Evaluation Reports, which was denied by the Evaluation Report
Appeals Board (ERAB).
On 25 June 1998, the AFBCMR considered and granted applicant’s request to
void the EPR closing 28 May 1997. A complete copy of the Record of
Proceedings is attached at Exhibit C.
EPR profile since 1991 reflects the following:
PERIOD ENDING EVALUATION OF POTENTIAL
2 Feb 91 4
2 Feb 92 5
1 Nov 93 5
28 May 94 5
28 May 95 5
28 May 96 5
28 May 97 AF Form 77 (void by
AFBCMR)
*28 May 98 4
* Contested report.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
The Chief, Appeals & SSB Branch, AFPC/DPPPAB, reviewed this application and
states that in reference to the applicant not believing the indorser had
adequate time in place to evaluate his duty performance; they state that
the Air Force charges evaluators with rendering fair and accurate EPRs and
ensuring the comments support the ratings. The fact the indorser was newly
assigned is not an issue. Subsequent evaluators are not required to have
first-hand knowledge of the ratee; if they feel their knowledge is
insufficient, they may obtain information from other reliable sources.
Furthermore, there is no provision for an indorser to have a certain amount
of days before he can render a performance report.
They further state that the applicant’s record contains an AF Form 77,
Supplemental Evaluation Sheet, for the period 29 May 1996 through 28 May
1997 (immediately preceding the contested reporting period). They note the
contested EPR reflects many positive accomplishments and do not believe it
would be in the applicant’s best interest to remove it from his records, as
it would create a two-year gap with no record of duty performance.
Therefore, based on the evidence provided, they recommend denial of
applicant's request.
A complete copy of the evaluation is attached at Exhibit D.
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
99E7.
A complete copy of their evaluation is attached at Exhibit E.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
On 18 January 1999, copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to
applicant for review and response. 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 contested report is either in error
or unjust. Applicant contends that the indorsing official threatened him
and made racial comments about blacks and Jews. However, he has failed to
substantiate his allegations. In this regard, we note that he indicates
that he filed a complaint through the chain of command but he has not
provided the results of his complaints. In addition, we contacted the
Inspector General’s office to receive a copy of any investigations filed by
the applicant and were informed that none existed. In view of the above,
and in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no compelling basis
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 26 May 1999, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:
Mr. Thomas S. Markiewicz, Panel Chair
Mr. Jackson A. Hauslein, Member
Mr. Charlie E. Williams, Jr., Member
Ms. Phyllis L. Spence, Examiner (without vote)
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 11 Dec 98, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Copy of Record of Proceeding, dated 24 Jul 98,
w/atchs.
Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/DPPPAB, dated 5 Jan 99.
Exhibit E. Letter, AFPC/DPPPWB, dated 21 Dec 98.
Exhibit F. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 18 Jan 99.
THOMAS S. MARKIEWICZ
Panel Chair
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. ...
On 9 September 1997, the applicant wrote to the 39th Wing IG alleging he had experienced reprisal by his squadron commander for giving a protected statement to an IG investigator during a separate IG investigation on 15 and 19 July 1997. The applicant alleged the squadron commander withheld a senior rater endorsement to [the EPR in question]. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Chief, Inquiries/AFBCMR Section, HQ AFPC/DPPPWB, reviewed...
Applicant contends his supervisor rendered the contested 3 March 1994 report in reprisal against him and requests the Board remove the report from his record. While the applicant has provided a statement from his former supervisor who states that a recommendation package was submitted, we are not persuaded that his former supervisor had the authority to submit an award recommendation or that the applicant was eligible for an award at the time his supervisor went PCS. If supplemental...
_________________________________________________________________ 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...
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...
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...
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...
AF | BCMR | CY1998 | BC-1998-01069
___________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Enlisted Promotion & Military Testing Branch, AFPC/DPPPWB, provided comments addressing supplemental promotion consideration. The complete evaluation is at Exhibit D. ___________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Applicant provided a supporting statement from his commander, who is also the indorser on the proposed reaccomplished...
___________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Enlisted Promotion & Military Testing Branch, AFPC/DPPPWB, provided comments addressing supplemental promotion consideration. The complete evaluation is at Exhibit D. ___________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Applicant provided a supporting statement from his commander, who is also the indorser on the proposed reaccomplished...