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
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...
___________________________________________________________________ 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
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
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
_________________________________________________________________ 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. ...
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...
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...
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...
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...
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...