RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 99-00138
INDEX CODE: 111.02
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
1. The Enlisted Performance Reports (EPRs) rendered for the periods 3
January 1992 through 16 November 1992, 17 November 1992 through 16 May
1993, 17 May 1993 through 16 May 1994, and 17 May 1994 through 16 May
1995 be declared void and removed from his records.
2. He be provided supplemental promotion consideration to the grade of
technical sergeant for each promotion from August 1993 through July 1997.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
The contested EPRs should be removed from his records on grounds of
discrimination, coercion, and misguided leadership.
In support of the appeal, applicant submits a statement from the indorser
of the contested report closing 16 May 1995, and statements from other
individuals.
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 the provisions of AFI 36-2401,
Correcting Officer and Enlisted Evaluation Reports, which was denied by
the Evaluation Report Appeals Board (ERAB).
EPR profile since 1992 reflects the following:
PERIOD ENDING EVALUATION OF POTENTIAL
*16 Nov 92 2
*16 May 93 3
*16 May 94 4 (Downgraded
from a 5)
*16 May 95 3
16 May 96 4
16 May 97 4
16 May 98 5
* Contested reports.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
The Chief, Promotion, Evaluation and Recognition Division, AFPC/DPPP,
reviewed this application and states that when requesting an entire
report be voided, the applicant must take into consideration that any
complimentary comments on the contested report will also be removed from
the records if the request is approved. Air Force policy is that an
evaluation report is accurate as written when it becomes a matter or
record. To effectively challenge an EPR, it is necessary to hear from
all the members of the rating chain, not only for support, but for
clarification and explanation. In this case, the applicant provided a
memorandum from the indorser of the May 1995 EPR only, who states the
applicant’s previous rater received an Article 15 for dereliction of duty
and making disparaging remarks against the applicant, and has failed to
provide any information or support from the remainder of the rating chain
on any of the contested reports.
They state that it is important to note the 16 May 1995 report has a
different rater than the March 1993, May 1993 and November 1994 reports.
While the applicant has proven the evaluator was biased, he has not
proven the bias affected his rater’s objectivity. They state the
referral November 1992 EPR documents the applicant’s substandard duty
performance. The May 1993 and May 1994 EPR note improvements in his duty
performance. They note the biased rater on the May 1994 EPR game him a
“5” promotion recommendation in Section IV, PROMOTION RECOMMENDATION, and
the indorser downgraded the report to a “4.” Even the squadron commander
who reviewed the May 1994 EPR had first hand knowledge of the applicant
and his duty performance. He states, “I’m pleased to see his performance
improving—his most recent EPR appears to illustrate that improvement.”
Therefore, they would be opposed to removing the contested EPRs from the
applicant’s record and recommend denial of his request.
A complete copy of the evaluation, with attachment, is attached at
Exhibit C.
The Chief, Inquiries/AFBCMR Section, AFPC/DPPPWB, also reviewed this
application and states that if the Board grants the applicant’s request
it would serve no useful purpose to provide him supplemental
consideration as he could not be selected. Therefore, they defer to the
recommendation of AFPC/DPPPAB.
A complete copy of their evaluation, with attachment, is attached at
Exhibit D.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
On 15 February 1999, 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. We took notice of the
applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of the case;
however, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of the Air Force
and adopt their rationale as the basis for the conclusion that the
applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice. Therefore,
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 8 June 1999, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:
Mr. Oscar A. Goldfarb, Panel Chair
Mr. Lawrence R. Leehy, Member
Mr. David E. Hoard, Member
Ms. Phyllis L. Spence, Examiner (without vote)
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 10 Jan 99, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPPP, dated 2 Feb 99.
Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/DPPPWB, dated 27 Jan 99, w/atch.
Exhibit E. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 15 Feb 99.
OSCAR A. GOLDFARB
Panel Chair
_________________________________________________________________ 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...
In support of his appeal, applicant provided copies of the contested report, a performance feedback worksheet received during the contested rating period, two prior evaluations and a subsequent evaluation, and a supporting statement from the rater on the contested report. DPPP stated that even though the EPR was written some 11 months after the closeout of the report, nothing is provided by the applicant or the evaluators to demonstrate that the comments contained in the EPR are inaccurate....
A complete copy of the Record of Proceedings is attached at Exhibit F. On 2 February 2000, an additional document was submitted and his case was reopened. We cannot detect any errors concerning the processing of this EPR and without more information concerning why the report was not deserved, we find no basis upon which to recommend voidance of the EPR closing 16 November 1992 from applicant’s records. The following members of the Board considered this application in Executive Session on...
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. One could also conclude, the “4” he received on the contested EPR may have motivated him to improve his duty performance for the subsequent reporting period. While it is true that EPRs are an important factor used in determining promotion potential under the Weighted Airmen’s Promotion System (WAPS), the contested report is not unjust,...
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...
A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit C. The Chief, Inquiries/AFBCMR Section, HQ AFPC/DPPPWB, advised that, should the Board set aside the Article 15, the applicant’s DOR and effective date to TSgt would be 1 November 1996 and, based on this DOR, he would be considered for MSgt for the first time in the promotion process cycle 99E7, provided he is otherwise eligible. As for the contested EPR, the first time this report will be considered in the promotion process will be for cycle...
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...
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...
___________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS: The Inquiries/AFBCMR Section, AFPC/DPPPWB, evaluated this application and provided the following information regarding the impact of the two EPRs on the applicant’s promotion consideration: The first time the two EPRs impacted the applicant’s promotion consideration was cycle 94A6 to TSgt (promotions effective Aug 93–Jul 94). We therefore recommend that the contested reports be corrected as indicated...
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...