RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 00-02010
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
1. The Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) rendered for the period 12
September 1990 through 30 June 1991 be corrected to allow the official
indorser to rate the report.
2. He is provided supplemental promotion consideration to the grade
of master sergeant and senior master sergeant for cycles 92A7, 99E8
and 00E8.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
His reporting official circumvented the chain of command by skipping
over his supervisor. He misinformed the commander and convinced him
to indorse and rate the report in error. The contested report is an
inaccurate assessment of his performance during the contested period.
The correct official indorser was not allowed to make comments on his
enlisted evaluation report. In support of the appeal, applicant
submits letters from his rating chain, the previous commander and
raters’ rater, and a copy of his ERAB appeal.
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 master sergeant.
The applicant appealed the contested report under the provisions of
AFI 36-2410 and the appeal was considered and denied by the Evaluation
Reports Appeal Board (ERAB).
EPR profile since 1985 reflects the following:
PERIOD ENDING OVERALL EVALUATION
Sep 90 4
* Jun 91 4
Jun 92 5
May 93 5
Mar 95 5
Mar 96 5
Mar 97 5
Mar 98 5
Mar 99 5
Mar 00 5
* Contested report.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
The Chief, Inquires/AFBCMR Section, AFPC/DPPPAB, reviewed this
application and deferred to the recommendation of AFPC/DPPPAB. If the
contested EPR had been rated an overall “5” as he is now requesting,
he would have been selected for promotion to MSgt during the 93A7
cycle. His total score would have increased from 337.41 to 341.91,
3.04 points above the 338.87 cutoff score required for selection. He
would have received Promotion Sequence Number (PSN) 4417.9 which would
have been effective 1 April 1993 provided he had been recommended
by his commander and had favorable data verification review. He was
subsequently selected for the next cycle, 94A7, and assumed the grade
1 January 1994. In addition to being eligible for supplemental
promotion consideration for the 93A7 cycle if the EPR is corrected as
he requests, he would also be entitled to supplemental consideration
to SMSgt beginning with cycle 95E8 (promotion effective 1 April 1995
through 1 March 1996).
A complete copy of the evaluation is attached at Exhibit C.
The Acting Chief, Appeals and SSBs Branch, AFPC/DPPPAB, reviewed this
application and states that based on evidence provided, the
application should be denied. The application is not timely. The
applicant filed a similar appeal under AFI 36-2401, Correcting Officer
and Enlisted Evaluation Reports, which the Evaluation Reports Appeal
Board (ERAB) denied.
The Air Force states an evaluation is accurate as written when it
becomes a matter of record. To effectively challenge an EPR, it is
necessary to hear from all members of the rating chain--not only for
support, but also for clarification/explanation. With his original
ERAB application, the applicant included a letter of support from his
erroneous indorser (commander) at the time the EPR was closed out.
The erroneous indorser’s letter in support of the AFBCMR appeal does
not reference any new evidence that was not available at the time the
EPR was rendered.
AFI 36-2401, Attachment 1, directs that to prove the report was not
written by the designated rater, the applicant needs “statements” from
both individuals who signed the report and from the individuals who
believe they should have written the report. They should cite the
from and through dates of their supervision and explain what happened.
The erroneous evaluator must clearly explain why he or she wrote and
signed the report when they were not the rater. Likewise, the correct
evaluator must explain why he or she did not write the report although
they were supposed to. Conspicuously absent is any support from the
rater, supporting the applicant’s claim of incorrect routing and
processing. Without clear-cut explanation or evidence, we do not
believe the contested report is not accurate as written, and do not
support his request to correct EPR.
A complete copy of their evaluation is attached at Exhibit D.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to applicant on 1
September 2000 for review and response. The applicant reviewed the
advisory opinions and states the facts in his appeal package show that
XXXXX clearly made an error in judgement of the overall evaluation of
the EPR. XXXXX also acknowledges his error in this process. The
overall evidence in his appeal clearly shows that this EPR of 30 June
1991 was simply a suspect report and should be reacommplished
correctly as described.
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. 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 our conclusion that the
applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice. In this
respect, we noted that the Air Force office of primary responsibility
(OPR) determined that the applicant’s supporting documentation did not
sufficiently clarify or explain the reason for incorrectly routing and
processing the report.
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 15 November 2000, under the provisions of AFI 36-
2603:
Mr. Benedict A. Kausal IV, Panel Chair
Mr. Christopher Carey, Member
Mr. Joseph Roj, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 24 July 2000.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPPPWB, dated 4 August 2000.
Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/DPPPAB, dated 17 August 2000.
Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 1 September 2000.
Exhibit F. Applicant's response, dated 30 August 2000.
BENEDICT A. KAUSAL IV
Panel Chair
I Applicant's complete submission is attached at Exhibit A. includes STATEMENT OF FACTS: Applicant was selected to the grade of master sergeant in cycle 95A7, effective and with a date of rank of 1 September 1994. AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Chief, Inquiries/AFBCMR Section, HQ AFPC/DPPPWB, reviewed this application and states that should the Board void the contested report in its entirety or upgrade the overall rating, providing the applicant is otherwise eligible, he will be entitled to...
In support of her appeal, the applicant provided the contested EPR, statements by the rater (dated 8 February 2000 & 27 July 2000), the indorser (dated 21 December 1999), and the commander (dated 15 December 1999 & 7 April 2000) of the contested report, the reaccomplished report, and a letter from the Superintendent, 436th Aerospace Medicine Squadron, dated 12 July 2000. MEMORANDUM FOR EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS (AFBCMR) FROM: SAF/MIB SUBJECT:...
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...
In support of his appeal, the applicant provided a personal statement, copies of several of his EPRs, a statement from the rater and indorser of the contested report, and other documentation relating to his appeal. A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit C. The Chief, BCMR & SSB Section, AFPC/DPPPAB, also reviewed this application and indicated that the applicant was involved in an off- duty domestic incident during the time the contested EPR was being finalized. ...
In support of his request, the applicant submits a personal statement, copies of his AFI 36-2401 application, the Evaluations Reports Appeal Board (ERAB) decision, a statement from his indorser and additional documents associated with the issues cited in his contentions. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Enlisted Promotion and Military Testing Branch, HQ AFPC/DPPPWB, stated that the first time the contested report was considered in...
_________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Enlisted Promotion Branch, HQ AFPC/DPPPWB, stated that the first time the contested report was considered in the promotion process was Cycle 97E6 to technical sergeant (E-6), promotions effective Aug 97 - Jul 98. It is noted that the applicant will become a selectee for promotion during this cycle if the Board grants his request, pending a favorable data verification check and the recommendation of...
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...
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).
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.
However, they do not, in our opinion, support a finding that the evaluators were unable to 3 ' 97-03510 render unbiased evaluations of the applicant's performance or that the ratings on the contested report were based on factors other than applicant's duty performance during the contested rating period. Applicant contends the contested report is an inaccurate account of his performance during the reporting period because the rater did not gather input from other sources pertaining to the...