RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 99-00561
INDEX NUMBER: 111.02
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
___________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
The Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) closing 30 April 1997 be removed
from his records.
___________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
The rating was based solely on a one-time incident during the rating
period. The report was written 11 months after the closeout.
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. He
also provided a copy of his appeal package submitted under the
provisions of AFI 36-2401 to the Evaluation Reports Appeal Board
(ERAB). (Exhibit A)
___________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
Information extracted from the Personnel Data System (PDS) reflects
applicant’s Total Active Federal Military Service Date (TAFMSD) as 17
October 1989. He is currently serving in the grade of staff sergeant.
A resume of applicant’s EPRs, as reflected in the PDS, follows:
PERIOD CLOSING OVERALL EVALUATION
16 Jun 91 5
16 Jun 92 4
12 Dec 92 5
27 Aug 93 5
19 Jun 94 5
19 Jun 95 4
7 Apr 96 4
30 Sep 96 4
* 30 Apr 97 4 (rater);
3 (indorser downgraded report);
referral report
30 Mar 98 5
30 Mar 99 5
* Contested report. A similar appeal submitted under the provisions
of AFI 36-3401 was considered and denied by the Evaluation Reports
Appeal Board on 17 July 1998.
___________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
The Enlisted Promotion and Military Testing Branch, AFPC/DPPPWB,
provided comments addressing supplemental promotion consideration.
The first cycle the contested EPR was used in the promotion process
was 98E5 to staff sergeant. Applicant was selected for promotion to
staff sergeant during this cycle. Therefore, if the EPR is removed as
requested, he will not be entitled to supplemental consideration for
any previous cycles. (Exhibit C)
The Promotion, Evaluation and Recognition Division, AFPC/DPPP,
reviewed this application and recommended denial based on the evidence
provided.
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. Further, they are not convinced the rater had
insufficient knowledge of the applicant’s duty performance to render
an accurate assessment of the applicant’s duty performance.
Noting that the rater stated he was “unaware why the indorser
recommended a lower rating...However, he was not notified of every
factor related to (the applicant’s) off duty conduct....,” DPPP stated
that the performance feedback worksheet prepared by this rater on 15
January 1997 commented on applicant’s financial irresponsibility.
While the rater may not have been aware of the disciplinary action
taken against the applicant, he was certainly aware of the behavior
that led to it.
The comment in the EPR that the indorser used to refer the report was
regarding the applicant’s financial irresponsibility. The AF Form 77
attached to the contested EPR indicates the applicant provided the
indorser comments, but he did not include a copy of these comments
with his AFBCMR appeal.
Examiner’s note: Subsequent to preparation of the advisory opinion, a
copy of applicant’s rebuttal comments was provided by the applicant’s
military personnel flight (MPF) and is appended to Exhibit D.
As a matter of interest, DPPP discovered that the applicant had
received an Article 15 on 24 February 1997 for misuse of the
government American Express charge card during the rating period.
This disciplinary action was initiated by the applicant’s commander -
the same individual who signed his referral EPR and the AF Form 77
attached to the EPR. There is no comment regarding this disciplinary
action in the contested EPR.
DPPP found no evidentiary support from the indorser of the contested
EPR. The applicant has only provided a letter of support from the
rater. It appears the report was accomplished in direct accordance
with Air Force policy in effect at the time it was rendered.
The complete evaluation is at Exhibit D.
___________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
A copy of the Air Force evaluations were provided to the applicant on
22 March 1999 for review and comment 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 have noted the
documents provided by the applicant, including the supporting
statement from the rater on the contested report. However, these
documents do not, in our opinion, support a finding that the contested
report is an inaccurate or unjust assessment of the applicant’s
performance as rendered or that the ratings on the report were based
on factors other than the applicant’s duty performance during the
contested rating period. In addition, even though the report was not
accomplished until some 11 months after the closeout date, we do not
find this to be a sufficient basis to invalidate the report. In view
of the foregoing, we agree with the opinion of the Air Force and adopt
their findings to support our conclusion that the applicant has not
been the victim of an error or injustice and that there is no basis
upon which to recommend favorable action on his request.
___________________________________________________________________
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 June 1999, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:
Mr. Richard A. Peterson, Panel Chair
Mr. Patrick R. Wheeler, Member
MR. Grover L. Dunn, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 24 Sep 98, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPPPWB, dated 4 Mar 99.
Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/DPPP, dated 9 Mar 99, w/atchs.
Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 22 Mar 99.
RICHARD A. PETERSON
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...
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 | CY2003 | BC-2003-01921
_________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPPPE recommends denial of the applicant’s request to void his EPR closing 26 Oct 99. The applicant stated in his appeal to the ERAB that the policy on reviewing EPRs required General R____ to perform a quality check. The complete evaluation is at Exhibit D. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant responded to the...
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...
Applicant’s complete submission is attached at Exhibit A. On 30 Sep 99, applicant’s supervisor did not recommend her for reenlistment due to the referral EPR. A complete copy of the their evaluation, with attachments, is attached at Exhibit D. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Applicant reviewed the Air Force evaluations and provided a five-page letter responding to the advisory opinions.
_________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: HQ AFPC/DPPPWB addressed the supplemental promotion consideration issue should the applicant’s request be approved. DPPPWB stated that the first time the contested report was considered in the promotion process was Cycle 97E5 to staff sergeant (E-5), promotions effective Sep 97 - Aug 98. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Having...
The applicant’s board score for the 99E8 board was 397.50. The applicant did provide a letter of recommendation from the commander supporting the upgrading of the EPR ratings and changes to his original comments. It is unreasonable to conclude the commander now, over 10 years later, has a better understanding of the applicant’s duty performance for that time period.
___________________________________________________________________ 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...
There is a not a direct correlation between the markings on the PFW and the ratings on an EPR f. The applicant asserts the indorser fiom the contested report did not have fust- hand knowledge of his duty performance and was, therefore, unable to render a proper evaluation of his duty performance. It is the applicant's responsibility and not the MPF, flight records office or the Air Force, to ensure his records are correct prior to the board. The applicant does not provide any evidence or...
The applicant contends the rater on the report was not actually his rater when the report closed out. In addition, neither the rater nor the applicant provided evidence as to why the rater signed both the report and the referral letter. The complete evaluation is at Exhibit D. ___________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION The applicant responded to the Air Force evaluation with another statement from his rater at the time of...