RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 99-01362
INDEX CODE: 111.02
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
The Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) rendered for the period 9 Jun 94
through 8 Jun 95 be declared void and removed from her records, and,
that all personnel actions be recalculated using the adjusted data.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
The contested report was unjust.
In support of her appeal, the applicant provided copies of her AFI 36-
2401 appeal applications, to include statements from the rater and
indorser of the contested report, and a copy of the report.
Applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
Applicant was relieved from active duty on 31 May 99 and retired,
effective 1 Jun 99, in the grade of staff sergeant. She was credited
with 20 years and 2 days of active duty service.
Applicant's APR/EPR profile since 1987 follows:
PERIOD ENDING EVALUATION
20 Jan 87 9
20 Jan 88 9
20 Jan 89 9
1 Oct 89 8
8 Jun 90 4 (EPR)
8 Jun 91 4
8 Jun 92 5
8 Jun 93 5
8 Jun 94 5
* 8 Jun 95 3
8 Jun 96 4
8 Jun 97 5
* Contested report.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
The Enlisted Promotion and Military Testing Branch, AFPC/DPPPWB,
reviewed this application and indicated that should the contested
report be voided or upgraded, providing she is otherwise eligible, the
applicant would be entitled to supplemental promotion consideration
beginning with cycle 96E6. According to DPPPWB, the applicant would
not become a selectee during cycles, 96E6, 97E6, or 98E6 if the Board
grants the request.
A complete copy of the DPPPWB evaluation is at Exhibit C.
The BCMR Appeals and SSB Section, AFPC/DPPPAB, reviewed this
application and recommended denial. According to DPPPAB, it is Air
Force policy that an evaluation report is accurate as written when it
becomes a matter of record. To effectively challenge an EPR, it is
necessary to hear from all of the members of the rating chain--not
only for support, but also for clarification/explanation. The
applicant has failed to provide any information/support from the
commander on the contested EPR. In the absence of information from
all of the evaluators, official substantiation of error or injustice
from the Inspector General (IG) or Military Equal Opportunity is
appropriate, but not provided in this case. The EPR was not
inaccurate or unjust simply because the applicant believes that it
was. It appears that the report was accomplished in direct accordance
with applicable regulations.
A complete copy of the DPPPAB evaluation is at Exhibit D.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to applicant on 26
Jul 99 for review and response. As of this date, no response has been
received by this office (Exhibit E).
_________________________________________________________________
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 all of
the evidence provided, we are unpersuaded that the contested report is
an inaccurate assessment of the applicant’s performance and
demonstrated potential for the period in question. In the rating
process, each evaluator is required to assess a ratee’s performance,
honestly and to the best of their ability. We note that the
commander, in an exercise of his discretionary judgment, downgraded
the ratings assigned by the rater and indorser and, in a Supplemental
Evaluation Sheet, stated that the applicant did not work well with
junior personnel with more knowledge in training area, and did not set
a professional example. No evidence has been provided which has shown
to our satisfaction that the commander abused his discretionary
authority, that the commander’s rating was based on inappropriate
considerations, or that the report is technically flawed. In the
absence of such evidence, the applicant’s request is not favorably
considered.
_________________________________________________________________
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 2 Dec 99, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:
Mr. Richard A. Peterson, Panel Chair
Mr. Clarence D. Long III, Member
Mr. Patrick R. Wheeler, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 19 May 99, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPPPWB, dated 2 Jun 99.
Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/DPPPAB, dated 6 Jul 99.
Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 26 Jul 99.
RICHARD A. PETERSON
Panel Chair
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...
A complete copy of the DPPPAB evaluation is at Exhibit D. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to applicant on 3 Aug 98 for review and response. After a thorough review of the available evidence, we are not convinced that the applicant’s evaluators were unable to render unbiased evaluations of his performance or that the ratings on the contested report were based...
_________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Enlisted Promotion & Military Testing Branch, HQ AFPC/DPPPWB, stated that based on the applicant’s date of rank (DOR) for senior master sergeant (E-8), the first time the contested report will be considered in the promotion process is Cycle 98E9 to chief master sergeant (E-9), promotions effective Jan 99 - Dec 99. A copy of this evaluation is appended at Exhibit C. The Directorate of Personnel...
The applicant filed two similar appeals under AFI 3 6 - 2 4 0 1 , Correcting Officer and Enlisted Evaluation Reports, which were denied by the Evaluation Reports Appeal Board (ERAB). The applicant requests the Board upgrade his 24 Jun 95 enlisted performance report (EPR) to a “5” in Section IV, Promotion Recommendation. The additional documentation he has submitted still by this “policy” regarding individuals who received an Article 15 (or that it ever existed).
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....
_________________________________________________________________ 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...
A copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit C. The Chief, AFBCMR Appeals and SSB Section, HQ AFPC/DPPPAB, states that the previous and subsequent EPRs that applicant submits are not germane to this appeal. A copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit D. APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Applicant states, in summary, that the statements he submitted all agree that the contested report was not written accurately and did not include specific...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-01161
___________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: Applicant states that no documented evidence exists that his performance had been anything less than exceptional. With the exception of the contested EPR closing 25 January 2000, applicant’s performance report from 1992 reflect an overall rating of “5”. ___________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPPPEP reviewed this application and indicates that...
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...