RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF:
DOCKET NUMBER: 97-01481
INDEX CODE: 111.02
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
The Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) rendered for the period 2 March
1996 through 1 March 1997 be declared void and removed from her records.
________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
1. There was a training deficiency.
2. The contested report is inappropriate because the comments are
inconsistent with the ratings.
3. There was a personality conflict with supervisors and co-workers.
4. The rater did not provide a formal performance feedback.
Applicant's complete submission is attached at Exhibit A.
________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
On 24 August 1983, the applicant entered active duty. On 9 April
1987 she reenlisted in the Air Force for a period of 4 years. On 8 July
1991, she was honorably discharged for reason of completed extended
enlistment. She served a total of 7 years 10 months and 15 days of
active duty. On 26 August 1991 she enlisted in the Air Force Reserve and
was honorably discharged on 17 March 1995. She served 3 years 6 months
22 days. On 18 March 1995, she reenlisted in the Air Force Reserve
for a period of 6 years.
Applicant’s non-EAD EPR profile is as follows:
PERIOD ENDING EVALUATION OF POTENTIAL
1 Mar 95 4
*1 Mar 97 3
1 Mar 98 4
1 Mar 00 5
*Contested Report
________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
The Director of Personnel Program Management, ARPC/DPP, reviewed this
application and states that the requested corrections cannot be
accomplished administratively at this headquarters.
In reference to the applicant’s contentions, they state that the case
file indicates there was a problem documenting training, but there was no
documentation from the rating chain that a training problem existed that
impacted on the evaluation report. Retrospective views of facts and
circumstances do not overcome the presumption that the rater’s initial
assessment was valid. Simply comparing an evaluator’s comments and
ratings do not mean the report was invalid. The application does not
provide firsthand evidence that shows the evaluator made an unfair or
inaccurate report. Also, there is no indication that the lack of
performance feedback counseling resulted in an unfair or unjust report.
They indicate that this point is somewhat moot since lack of feedback, by
itself, is not an adequate reason to invalidate a report. They also
point out that 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. Therefore, they recommend disapproval of applicant’s request.
A complete copy of the evaluation is attached at Exhibit C.
________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to applicant on 19 July
1999 for review and response 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 not timely filed; however, it is in the interest
of justice to excuse the failure to timely file.
3. Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the
existence of probable error or injustice. After reviewing the evidence
submitted with this appeal, we believe that the applicant has failed to
provide sufficient evidence showing that the report was not an accurate
assessment of her performance. In view of the above findings, we are in
agreement with the comments and recommendation of the Air Force and adopt
their rationale as the basis for the conclusion that the applicant has not
been the victim of an error or injustice. 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 9 November 2000, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:
Mr. Wayne R. Gracie, Panel Chair
Ms. Marcia J. Bachman, Member
Mr. Clarence D. Long III, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 27 May 99, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, ARPC/DPP, dated 28 Jun 99.
Exhibit D. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 19 Jul 99.
WAYNE R. GRACIE
Panel Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2006-03769
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2006-03769 INDEX CODE: 111.02 XXXXXXX COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 15 JUN 2008 ___________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His rating on his Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) closing 19 May 2006, be changed from an overall “4” to a “5”; the endorsement level be upgraded to “Senior Rater Deputy”...
AF | BCMR | CY2008 | BC-2007-01327
The EPR is erroneous in that it reflects an incorrect reporting period due to the fact that her last UTA with the 302nd ASTS was performed on 10 August 2003 and she did not participate with this unit for pay/points after this date, and reflects a feedback session date of 2 June 2003 that did not occur and was fabricated for reasons unknown to her. The applicant’s contentions are noted; however, the available evidence indicates that although she contends she did not participate with the...
The rater stated she supervised the applicant from April 1997 to 13 November 1997. As of this date, no response has been received by this office (Exhibit D). 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...
A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit C. The Chief, Appeals & SSB Branch, AFPC/DPPPA, also reviewed this application and indicated that while the applicant contends that he did not receive his two feedbacks during the contested period, they note that the rater indicates in Section V (Rater’s Comments) that feedbacks were conducted on 25 Sep 96 and 6 Mar 97. Air Force policy is that an evaluation report is accurate as written when it becomes a matter of record...
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...
AF | BCMR | CY2008 | BC-2007-03091
Section III, Evaluation of Performance, contains ratings marked one block to the left by his rater, the squadron commander, and the additional rater, the group commander, for Duty performance and Managerial Skills. If the applicant had provided some supporting documentation that the feedback date was in error, the ERAB would have corrected the report to reflect the accurate date and/or applicable statement versus voiding the report. The applicant provided no evidence to support his claim.
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-02202
On 20 July 2005, ARPC/DPBPP, requested the applicant provide a copy of the additional rater’s e-mail, dated 10 July 2003, which the applicant’s cites as an attachment in her Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records application package. We note the comments provided by the Air Force office of primary responsibility that although Air Force policy does require performance feedback for personnel, it does not replace day-to-day feedback; and, failure to conduct a required or requested...
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...
AF | BCMR | CY2009 | BC-2009-00137
When he questioned his supervisor about his performance rating, he was told he would receive a five rating. The complete DPSIDEP evaluation is at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 6 Mar 09 for review and comment within 30 days. In addition, we note the feedback worksheet provided by the applicant supports the rating he received.
A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit C. The Chief, Performance Evaluation Section, AFPC/DPPPEP, also reviewed this application and indicated that while the applicant believes the ratings and comments on the EPR are inconsistent with her prior and subsequent evaluations, that does not render the report erroneous or unjust. DPPPEP does not believe that a personality conflict existed between the applicant and the rater. A complete copy of their evaluation is...