Search Decisions

Decision Text

AF | BCMR | CY2000 | 9901092
Original file (9901092.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

                       RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  99-01092
            INDEX NUMBER:  111.02
            COUNSEL:  NONE
            HEARING DESIRED:  NO

Applicant requests that the Enlisted Performance  Report  (EPR)  closing  30
January 1996 be removed from her  records.   Applicant's  submission  is  at
Exhibit A.

The Evaluation Report Appeals Board (ERAB) previously  determined  that  the
applicant’s rater did not conduct feedback IAW AFI 36-2403.   However,  when
they corrected the report,  they  removed  the  midterm  feedback  date  but
neglected to remove the  initial  feedback  date  from  Section  V  (Rater’s
Comments).  On 7 February  2000,  the  Evaluation  Reports  Appeal  Section,
AFPC/DPPPAE, administratively corrected the contested EPR  and  removed  the
erroneous initial feedback date  of  “25  August  1996,”  and  inserted  the
statement “Ratee has established that feedback wasn’t provided IAW  AFI  36-
2403.”

The  appropriate  Air  Force  offices  evaluated  applicant's  request   and
provided advisory opinions to the  Board  recommending  the  application  be
denied (Exhibit C).  The advisory opinions were forwarded to  the  applicant
for review and response (Exhibit D).  As of this date, no response has  been
received by this office.

After  careful  consideration  of  applicant's  request  and  the  available
evidence of record, we find insufficient evidence of error or  injustice  to
warrant corrective action.  The facts and opinions stated  in  the  advisory
opinions appear to be based on the evidence of  record  and  have  not  been
rebutted by applicant.  Absent  persuasive  evidence  applicant  was  denied
rights to which entitled, appropriate  regulations  were  not  followed,  or
appropriate standards were not applied, we find  no  basis  to  disturb  the
existing record.

Accordingly, applicant's request is denied.

The  Board  staff  is  directed  to  inform  applicant  of  this   decision.
Applicant should also be informed that this decision is final and will  only
be reconsidered upon the presentation of new  relevant  evidence  which  was
not reasonably available at the time the application was filed.

Members of the Board, Mr. Thomas S. Markiewicz, Mr. John E. Pettit, and  Mr.
Steven A.  Shaw,  considered  this  application  on  17  February  2000,  in
accordance with the provisions of Air  Force  Instruction  36-2603  and  the
governing statute, 10 U.S.C. 1552.



                                    THOMAS S. MARKIEWICZ
                                    Panel Chair

Exhibits:
A.  Applicant's DD Form 149
B.  Available Master Personnel Records
C.  Advisory Opinions
D.  SAF/MIBR Ltr Forwarding Advisory Opinions

Similar Decisions

  • AF | BCMR | CY1999 | 9801635

    Original file (9801635.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    In his submissions to the Evaluation Reports Appeal Board (ERAB), he illustrated his insufficient training, his attempts to get training, and the different conversations he had with the rater concerning his duty performance and accomplished workload tasks. The applicant contends he did not receive the 28 Jun 96 feedback session as indicated on his 16 Nov 96 EPR; however, he did not provide anything from his evaluator to support his allegation. Especially in view of the fact that the report...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2001 | 0003332

    Original file (0003332.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    ___________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Enlisted Promotion and Military Testing Branch, AFPC/DPPPWB, states that if the Board removes the referral EPR as requested, the applicant will be entitled to supplemental promotion consideration for the 00E7 cycle provided he is otherwise qualified and recommended by his commander. Because the applicant’s last EPR was referral closing 1 June 1999 (he did not receive his next EPR until 5 June...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-02202

    Original file (BC-2005-02202.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    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...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2002 | BC-2002-03566

    Original file (BC-2002-03566.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Evaluation Reports Appeal Board (ERAB) denied his request. A complete copy of the evaluation, with attachment, is attached at Exhibit C. AFPC/DPPPWB states that based on the applicant’s date of rank to technical sergeant, the first time the contested report will be used in the promotion process is cycle 03E7 to master sergeant (promotions effective August 2003 - July 2004). However, if favorable results are received by 1 May 2003, no supplemental consideration would be required as...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2007-01877

    Original file (BC-2007-01877.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: Between September 2006 and January 2007 of the rating period, his rating official had only 107 days of supervision and not the 276 days as stated on his EPR. He contends he never received a performance feedback and that Air Force Instruction (AFI) 36-2406, Officer and Enlisted Evaluation Systems, required supervisors to have a minimum of 120 days of direct supervision before an EPR can be generated. ...

  • AF | BCMR | CY1999 | 9803134

    Original file (9803134.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    She states that her rater based his evaluation of her duty performance on an isolated part of the rating period; and the contested report is based on the last 120 days of the 20 month reporting period. 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 21 December 1998 for review and response within 30...

  • AF | BCMR | CY1998 | 9703510

    Original file (9703510.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2000 | 9901260

    Original file (9901260.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    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 | CY1998 | 9703800

    Original file (9703800.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Chief, Inquiries/AFBCMR Section, AFPC/DPPPAB, reviewed this application and indicated that the first time the contested report was considered in the promotion process was cycle 95E7 to master sergeant (promotions effective Aug 95 - Jul 96). A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit C. The Chief, BCMR & SSB Section, AFPC/DPPPA, also reviewed this application and indicated that, although the applicant provides a copy of an unsigned draft EPR...

  • AF | BCMR | CY1998 | 9800777

    Original file (9800777.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The appropriate Air Force offices evaluated applicant's request and provided advisory opinions to the Board recommending the application be denied (Exhibit C). Applicant's response to the advisory opinions is at Exhibit E. After careful consideration of applicant's request and the available evidence of record, we find insufficient evidence of error or injustice to warrant corrective action. The appIicant filed a similar appeal under AFI 36- 240 1, Correcting Officer and Enlisted Evaluation...