RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 99-00974
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
The Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) rendered for the period
16 Nov 95 through 15 Nov 97 be declared void and removed from his
records.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
He never received formal, written feedback from his rater regarding
his performance. Also, there was a lack of observation of his
performance by the rater and insufficient supervision.
In support of his appeal, the applicant provided a personal statement,
supportive statements, including a statement from the rater of the
contested report, a copy of the EPR, and other documents associated
with the matter under review.
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 in the Air Force Reserve in
the grade of staff sergeant, having been promoted to that grade on 1
Jan 97.
Applicant's EPR profile since 1987 follows:
PERIOD ENDING EVALUATION
19 May 93 5
31 May 94 4
14 Oct 94 5
* 15 Nov 97 3 (Non-AD)
* Contested report.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
The Director of Personnel Program Management, ARPC/DP, reviewed this
application and recommended denial. DP indicated that there was no
indication that the lack of performance feedback counseling resulted
in an unfair or unjust report. In fact, the rater stated she believed
she made an accurate assessment. However, this point is somewhat moot
since lack of feedback, by itself, is not an adequate reason to
invalidate a report. Further, the responsibility for feedback sessions
does not rest solely with the rater since the ratee is required to
notify the rater, and if necessary, the rater's rater when a feedback
session is not provided.
According to DP, the applicant's contention that there was
insufficient supervision and lack of observation could not be
substantiated. The rater stated she supervised the applicant from
April 1997 to 13 November 1997. During this period, the applicant had
sufficient participation points to have the report rendered. However,
the rater stated she only became aware she was the rater in September
1997. Between September 1997 and 13 November 1997, the applicant
completed 11 points of participation. Sixteen points under the direct
supervision of the rater is required for enlisted evaluation report
purposes. The applicant claims the date of supervision was
“backdated,” but does not provide any evidence to support this
allegation.
A complete copy of the DP evaluation is at Exhibit C.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
An undated copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to applicant
for review and response. As of this date, no response has been
received by this office (Exhibit D).
_________________________________________________________________
THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:
1. The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by existing law
or regulations.
2. The application was timely filed.
3. Sufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the
existence of probable error or injustice. Based on the evidence
presented, particularly the statements from the applicant’s rater and
the wing quality officer, we believe some doubt has been raised
regarding equity and accuracy of the contested report. In our
opinion, any doubt should be resolved in favor of the applicant.
Accordingly, we recommend that the contested report be declared void
and removed from the applicant’s records.
_________________________________________________________________
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT:
The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force
relating to APPLICANT, be corrected to show that the Enlisted
Performance Report, AF Form 910, rendered for the period 16 Nov 95
through 15 Nov 97, be declared void and removed from his records.
_________________________________________________________________
The following members of the Board considered this application in
Executive Session on 28 Sep 99, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:
Ms. Charlene M. Bradley, Panel Chair
Ms. Dorothy P. Loeb, Member
Mr. Joseph A. Roj, Member
All members voted to correct the records, as recommended. The
following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 5 Apr 99, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, ARPC/DP, dated 6 May 99.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MIBR, undated.
CHARLENE M. BRADLEY
Panel Chair
AFBCMR 99-00974
MEMORANDUM FOR THE CHIEF OF STAFF
Having received and considered the recommendation of the Air
Force Board for Correction of Military Records and under the authority
of Section 1552, Title 10, United States Code (70A Stat 116), it is
directed that:
The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air
Force relating to , be corrected to show that the Enlisted Performance
Report, AF Form 910, rendered for the period 16 Nov 95 through 15 Nov
97, be, and hereby is, declared void and removed from his records.
JOE G. LINEBERGER
Director
Air Force Review Boards Agency
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...
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...
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 | CY2005 | BC-2004-03357
CLOSING DATE OVERALL EVALUATION 31 Dec 03 5 31 Dec 02 5 31 Dec 01 4 (Contested) 15 Nov 00 5 31 Dec 99 5 1 May 99 5 1 May 98 5 1 May 97 5 1 May 96 5 1 May 95 5 The applicant filed a similar appeal under the provisions of AFI 36- 2401. He further contended he had only 48 days of supervision with the rater of the 31 Dec 01 EPR, and that the closeout date was changed from 15 Nov 01 to 31 Dec 01. If the applicant received a new rater in Jul 01 as the Air Force asserts, then the EPR’s reporting...
EPR profile since 1992 reflects the following: PERIOD ENDING OVERALL EVALUATION 29 Jan 92 5 29 Jan 93 5 14 May 94 5 * 14 May 95 5 14 May 96 5 15 Nov 96 5 15 Nov 97 5 5 Oct 98 5 * Contested report _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Chief, Inquiries/AFBCMR Section, Enlisted Promotion & Military Testing Branch, HQ AFPC/DPPPWB, reviewed this application and states that should the Board replace the report with the closing date of 1 October...
_________________________________________________________________ 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...
Except for the contested report and a 2 Dec 91 EPR having an overall rating of “4,” all of the applicant’s performance reports since Dec 90 have had overall ratings of “5.” Since the Article 15’s suspended reduction expired on 12 Aug 96, prior to the 31 Dec 96 Promotion Eligibility Cutoff Date (PECD) for promotion cycle 97E6, the Article 15 did not affect the applicant’s eligibility for promotion consideration to technical sergeant for that cycle. ...
The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating to APPLICANT be corrected to show that the Enlisted Performance Report, AF Form 910, rendered for the period 24 July 1997 through 11 December 1998, be declared void and removed from her records. ROSCOE HINTON JR. Panel Chair AFBCMR 02-01041 MEMORANDUM...
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.
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...