RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 99-03145 (Case 3)
INDEX CODE: 111.02
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His Enlisted Performance Report (EPR), rendered for the period 1 Jul
96 through 30 Jun 97, be declared void and removed from his records.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
The contested EPR should be removed from his records because of undue
emphasis placed on an isolated incident.
In support of his request, the applicant submits a personal statement
and copies of his AFI 36-2401 applications (Exhibit A).
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
Information extracted from the Personnel Data System (PDS) indicates
that the applicant contracted his initial enlistment in the Regular
Air Force on 25 Feb 77. He has been progressively promoted to the
grade of master sergeant (E-7), with an effective date and date of
rank of 1 Feb 94. The following is a resume of his EPR ratings
subsequent to his promotion to that grade.
Period Ending Evaluation
30 Jun 95 4 - Ready for Promotion
30 Jun 96 5 - Immediate Promotion
* 30 Jun 97 4
30 Jun 98 5
30 Jun 99 5
1 Dec 99 5
* Contested report
Similar appeals by the applicant, under Air Force Instruction (AFI) 36-
2401, were considered and denied by the Evaluation Report Appeal Board
(ERAB) on 8 May 98 and 13 Sep 99.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
The Enlisted Promotion and Military Testing Branch, HQ AFPC/DPPPWB,
stated that the first time the contested report was considered in the
promotion process was Cycle 98E8 to senior master sergeant (E-8),
promotions effective Apr 98 - Mar 99. Should the Board grant his
request, providing he is otherwise eligible, the applicant will be
entitled to supplemental promotion consideration commencing with Cycle
98E8. They defer to the recommendation of AFPC/DPPPAB (Exhibit C).
The Directorate of Personnel Program Management, HQ AFPC/DPPPAB,
stated that the applicant included a letter of support from his rater,
which reiterates Air Force policy. The applicant contends his rater’s
rater downgraded the EPR due to an isolated incident; however, the
governing Air Force instruction stipulates that each evaluator should
“consider the significance and frequency of incidents (including
isolated incidents of poor or outstanding performance) when assessing
total performance.” Hence, the EPR was written and processed in
direct accordance with Air Force policy. Based on the evidence
provided, DPPPAB recommended the applicant’s request be denied. 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 21
January 2000 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. 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
appropriate office of primary responsibility (HQ AFPC/DPPPAB) and
adopt the rationale expressed as the basis for our decision that the
applicant has failed to sustain his burden that he has suffered either
an error or an injustice. In this respect, we found no evidence that
the contested report was prepared contrary to the governing
regulation. In view of the above and absent 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 11 April 2000, under the provisions of AFI 36-
2603:
Mr. Vaughn E. Schlunz , Panel Chair
Ms. Nancy W. Drury, Member
Ms. Peggy E. Gordon, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 21 Nov 99, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPPWB, dated 21 Dec 99.
Exhibit D. Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPPAB, dated 5 Jan 00.
Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 21 Jan 00.
VAUGHN E. SCHLUNZ
Panel Chair
_________________________________________________________________ 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...
AF | BCMR | CY1998 | BC-1998-01069
___________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Enlisted Promotion & Military Testing Branch, AFPC/DPPPWB, provided comments addressing supplemental promotion consideration. The complete evaluation is at Exhibit D. ___________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Applicant provided a supporting statement from his commander, who is also the indorser on the proposed reaccomplished...
___________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Enlisted Promotion & Military Testing Branch, AFPC/DPPPWB, provided comments addressing supplemental promotion consideration. The complete evaluation is at Exhibit D. ___________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Applicant provided a supporting statement from his commander, who is also the indorser on the proposed reaccomplished...
The report was forwarded for senior rater endorsement and signed, dated 14 June 1997. The reaccomplished EPR should be removed from his record and replaced with the initial EPR signed and dated 2 June 1997, which accurately reflected his duty performance during the period in question. EVALUATION: The Chief, Inquiries, AFBCMR Section, Enlisted Promotion & Military Testing Branch, HQ AFPC/DPPPWB, reviewed this application and states that the first time the report was considered in 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...
They state it appears the applicant's evaluators took their rating responsibilities seriously, and rated her appropriately in not only their evaluation of her performance but in their promotion recommendation when they compared her with others of the same grade and Air Force specialty. Applicant states the contested report is inconsistent With performance feedback she received during the period covered by the report. It appears the applicant’s evaluators took their rating responsibilities...
_________________________________________________________________ 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...
As a result Wing/CC indorsement will not occur.” All EPRs on a Chief Master Sergeant (CMSgt), Senior Master Sergeant (SMSgt), and MSgt on active duty become a matter of record when the Air Force Personnel Center (AFPC) files the original (or certified copy) in the member’s senior noncommissioned officer selection folder (SNCOSF). A complete copy of the evaluation, with attachments, is attached at Exhibit C. The Chief, Inquiries/AFBCMR Section Enlisted Promotion & Military Testing Branch, HQ...
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...
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. ...