RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 99-00191
INDEX CODE: 111.00
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
The Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) rendered for the period
23 January 1997 through 22 January 1998, be declared void and replaced
with a reaccomplished report covering the same period.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
Applicant states that his supervisor lacked the proper training to
write the contested report.
Applicant believes that he was deprived of proper counseling prior to
the writing of the contested report. He basis this upon the feedback
sheets both of which had all the rating in the far right hand side and
both included statements that said “I would rate him a 5”. His
supervisor was not properly trained in evaluating and writing
performance reports.
In support of the appeal, applicant submits statements from the rating
chain members.
Applicant's complete submission is attached at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
Applicant is currently serving in the Regular Air Force in the grade
of technical sergeant.
The applicant filed two previous appeals under the provisions of AFI
36-2402, Correcting Officer and Enlisted Evaluation Reports, which
were denied by the Evaluation Report Appeals Board (ERAB).
Applicant was considered and not selected for promotion to the grade
of master sergeant by the 99E7 cycle.
EPR profile follows:
PERIOD ENDING EVALUATION OF POTENTIAL
18 Aug 95 5
5 Jul 96 5
22 Jan 97 5
* 22 Jan 98 4
22 Jan 99 5
* Contested Report
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
The Chief, Promotion, Evaluation and Recognition Division, AFPC/DPPPA,
reviewed this application and states that the rater contends he was
inexperienced in rating military personnel, and as a result, did not
clearly outline his expectations of the applicant’s duty performance
during the performance feedback sessions. He later states the
applicant’s level of performance remained high to the end of the
reporting period, but his perspective of what constituted excellent and
exceptional performance changed because of new management. While the
rater and the applicant are attempting to relate the ratings on the EPR
to the markings on the performance feedback worksheet (PFW), they believe
this to be an inappropriate comparison and is inconsistent with the
Enlisted Evaluation System (EES). The indorsing and reviewing commander
contend they “relied on the good judgment and insight of the supervisor
to fill in the gaps when considering proper promotion recommendation.
They now believe the rater may have been inexperienced in evaluating
military members. In May 1995, the Chief of Staff stated, “We will teach
all supervisors the principles and philosophies, as well as the “We will
teach all. . .as well as the how to’s of EES.” Since the Air Force
charges evaluators with rendering fair and accurate EPRs and ensuring the
comments support the ratings, the time for the indorser to question the
“4” promotion recommendation on the report was before it became a matter
of record, not afterwards. The evaluating chain did not explain what
“extra work” the applicant did during the reporting period to justify a
“5” promotion recommendation. In fact, he claims the quantity of work
the applicant accomplished was not more significant than the
accomplishments he had previously included on the report. The documents
provided do not reveal a violation of regulatory provisions or indicate
an injustice occurred. It appears this appeal is simply an effort to
upgrade a report to enhance the applicant’s promotion opportunity. 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/Special Actions Section, AFPC/DPPPWB, also
reviewed this application and states that should the Board void the
report in its entirety, or upgrade the overall rating, providing
applicant is otherwise eligible, he will be entitled to supplemental
promotion consideration beginning with cycle 99E7.
A complete copy of their evaluation is attached at Exhibit D.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
The applicant reviewed the advisory opinions and states the decision the
Board makes on this case is bigger than him. It is a ruling on the
validly of PFW. Are we going to tell our subordinates the truth or are
we going to lie to them? He has ten subordinates and takes a
painstakingly long time in making his PFWs and always has because he
thought they meant something. All he is requesting is the same
consideration for himself. What is wants more than anything else is a
decision that sends the message, “Yes, the PFWs do matter and YES
supervisors are going to do the honorable thing and be held true to their
word.”
Applicant's complete response is attached at Exhibit F.
_________________________________________________________________
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 was
rendered in error or is unjust. Applicant’s contentions are duly
noted; however, we do not find these allegations, in and by
themselves, sufficiently persuasive to override the rationale provided
by the Air Force. The applicant believes that the EPR in question is
in error based on the feedback he received. Ratings on feedback
sheets are not an absolute indicator of EPR ratings or potential for
serving in a higher grade. The statements from the rater indicate
that he lacked experience in rating military subordinates; that
shortly after providing performance feedback, his (rater) prospective
of what constituted excellent performance changed; and, that he took
this to the extreme without providing feedback. The comments on the
feedback sheets and the contested report, indicate that the rater was
aware of applicant’s performance and accomplishments at the time he
evaluated applicant’s promotion potential. While the rater now
believes the rating he gave was unfair, we believe the rater, at the
time he prepared the report, rendered an honest assessment of
applicant’s performance. Therefore, in the absence of more convincing
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 19 August 1999, under the provisions of AFI 36-
2603:
Mr. Thomas S. Markiewicz, Panel Chair
Mr. Grover L. Dunn, Member
Mr. Steven A. Shaw, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 14 Jan 99, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPPA, dated 2 Feb 99, w/atchs.
Exhibit D. Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPPWB, dated 27 Jan 99.
Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 15 Feb 99.
Exhibit F. Applicant’s Response, dated 4 Mar 99.
THOMAS S. MARKIEWICZ
Panel Chair
DPPPA notes the applicant provided several copies of performance feedbacks given since she came on active duty. In addition to the two performance feedbacks noted on the contested EPR, DPPPA notes the rater also completed a PFW on 19 May 93 in which he complimented her on her initiatives to keep up with her training. After thoroughly reviewing the evidence of record, we are persuaded that the contested report is not an accurate reflection of applicant’s performance during the time period...
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...
A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit C. The Chief, Inquiries/AFBCMR Section, AFPC/DPPPWB, reviewed this application and indicated that the first time the contested report was considered in the promotion process was cycle 97E9 to chief master sergeant (promotions effective Jan 98 - Dec 98). However, if the Board upgrades the decoration as requested, it could direct supplemental promotion consideration for cycle 98E9. A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation...
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...
_________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Chief, Commander’s Programs Branch, AFPC/DPSFC, reviewed this application and states that when an enlisted member retires, as the applicant has done, the UIF and its contents are destroyed. He was only required to report, even the slightest possibility, that an Air Force member was being racially discriminated against. Applicant's complete response is attached at Exhibit...
97-00286 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 9635. The applicant requests correction of the 14 Mar 95...
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...
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2006-03817
The purpose of the feedback session is to give the ratee direction and to define performance expectations for the rating period in question. The complete evaluation is at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant states the performance feedback work sheet is used to tell a ratee what is expected regarding duty performance and how well expectations are being met. After reviewing the documentation...
They state it appears the applicant's evaluators took their rating responsibilities seriously, and rated her appropriately in not only their evaluation of her performance but in their promotion recommendation when they compared her with others of the same grade and Air Force specialty. Applicant states the contested report is inconsistent With performance feedback she received during the period covered by the report. It appears the applicant’s evaluators took their rating responsibilities...
A complete copy of the advisory is attached at Exhibit C. The Chief, Awards and Decorations Section, HQ AFPC/DPPPR, reviewed the application for award of the MSM for the period of 2 Jul 97 – 3 Jul 99. It is the supervisor’s responsibility to recommend or not recommend for a decoration upon Permanent Change of Station (PCS). Applicant's Master Personnel Records.