RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 00-02615
INDEX CODE: 111.02
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
The Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) rendered for the period 1 May 99
through 30 Apr 00 be declared void and removed from his records.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
The contested report was improperly referred to him.
The comments on the EPR were inappropriate in accordance with the
governing Air Force instruction.
The rater documented an incident that was still under investigation.
He never saw the EPR until he went to the Military Personnel Flight
(MPF) to get a copy.
In support of his appeal, the applicant provided an expanded
statement, a copy of the contested report, and documentation
pertaining to a Report of Survey.
Applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
Information extracted from the Personnel Data System (PDS) indicates
that the applicant is currently serving on active duty in the grade of
staff sergeant, having been promoted to that grade on 1 Sep 96. His
Total Active Federal Military Service Date (TAFMSD) is 15 Dec 86.
Applicant's EPR profile since 1989 follows:
PERIOD ENDING EVALUATION
30 Jun 89 4
15 Jan 90 5
15 Jan 91 5
15 Jan 92 5
15 Jan 93 5
15 Jan 94 4
30 Jun 94 5
11 Aug 95 5
11 Aug 96 5
11 Aug 97 5
11 Aug 98 5
30 Apr 99 5
* 30 Apr 00 3 (Referral)
* Contested report.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
The Evaluation Programs Branch, AFPC/DPPPE, reviewed this application
and recommended denial. DPPPE noted that, on 14 Mar 00, the applicant
was involved in the destruction of a government owned vehicle (GOV).
On 30 Mar 00, an investigating officer was appointed for the report of
survey. On 14 Apr 00, the investigating officer documented his
findings during the report of survey identifying the applicant as
being grossly negligent in his actions. On 24 Apr 00, the unit
commander completed DD Form 200, Financial Liability Investigation of
Properly Loss, citing negligence on the part of the applicant.
According to DPPPE, the applicant’s rater did not mention any ongoing
investigation in his EPR, only that he was negligent in his duties
resulting in the destruction of a GOV. The rater is not prohibited
from documenting such negligence in duty performance and the results
of such negligence. In fact, EPRs are used for just that, to document
the observations of a member’s duty performance.
DPPPE noted the applicant’s contention that he never saw the contested
EPR until he went to the MPF to get a copy. According to DPPPE, the
applicant acknowledged receipt on his referral memorandum on 1 May 00.
The referral memorandum specifically stated that a copy of the
referral EPR was attached (listed as an attachment) for his review.
In addition, it specifically stated that the applicant had 10 calendar
days to complete his comments and forward to additional rater. He
failed to submit a rebuttal.
On or about 30 Oct 00, DPPPE indicated that they spoke with the
additional rater concerning some of the allegations. The additional
rater stated that the applicant did receive a copy of the EPR and
referral memorandum. In addition, the applicant was aware of the 10
calendar day suspense to provide comments in rebuttal of the referral
EPR.
According to DPPPE, it is unlikely that the applicant would sign the
referral memorandum (listing the EPR as an attachment) outlining
procedures for providing comments to the additional rater and not have
received the EPR and appropriate instruction for rebuttal procedures
(they are listed in memorandum). The applicant has provided no solid
evidence to substantiate such allegations. His attempt to point out
improper referral procedures seems farfetched as he tries to convince
the AFBCMR that he failed to read and heed the instructions on the
referral memorandum that he signed on 1 May 00. In addition, the
rating chain did not mention any ongoing investigation. The rater is
not prohibited from documenting negligence in duty performance and the
results of such negligence. It is the rating chain's belief that the
applicant was negligent in his duty performance as of the closeout
date of 30 Apr 00. The applicant even stated that it was well known
that the referral he received was justified by the particular
incident.
A complete copy of the DPPPE evaluation is at Exhibit C.
The Enlisted Promotion and Military Testing Branch, AFPC/DPPPWB,
reviewed this application and indicated that the only promotion cycle
the contested EPR impacted was cycle 00E6. According to DPPPWB, a
referral EPR is an automatic ineligible for promotion condition in
accordance with the governing Air Force Instruction. Although the
applicant had already tested for this cycle when he received the EPR,
it rendered him ineligible for consideration. Even if the Board
should remove the EPR, it would serve no useful purpose to provide him
supplemental consideration for this cycle as his total score, 295.90,
would be below the score required for selection in his promotion Air
Force Specialty Code (AFSC), which was 317.10.
A complete copy of the DPPPWB evaluation, with attachments, is at
Exhibit D.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to applicant on 8
Dec 00 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. The applicant's
complete submission was thoroughly reviewed and his contentions were
duly noted. However, we do not find the applicant’s uncorroborated
assertions, in and of themselves, sufficiently persuasive to override
the rationale provided by AFPC/DPPPE. Therefore, in the absence of
evidence that the contested report was an inaccurate depiction of the
applicant’s performance at the time it was rendered, we adopt
AFPC/DPPPE’s rationale and conclude that no basis exists 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 5 Mar 01, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:
Ms. Kathy L. Boockholdt, Panel Chair
Ms. Margaret A. Zook, Member
Mr. Daniel F. Wenker, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 22 Sep 00, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPPPE, dated 9 Nov 00.
Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/DPPPWB, dated 13 Nov 00.
Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 8 Dec 00.
KATHY L. BOOCKHOLDT
Panel Chair
Applicant’s complete submission is attached at Exhibit A. On 30 Sep 99, applicant’s supervisor did not recommend her for reenlistment due to the referral EPR. A complete copy of the their evaluation, with attachments, is attached at Exhibit D. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Applicant reviewed the Air Force evaluations and provided a five-page letter responding to the advisory opinions.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 00-03018 INDEX CODE: 111.02, 134.01 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: An expired Unfavorable Information File (UIF), with a Letter of Reprimand (LOR) be removed from her records; the line in Section V (Rater’s Comments) of her Enlisted Performance Report (EPR), closing 23 Apr 99, which made the...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-00055
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2004-00055 INDEX CODE: 111.02 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His Referral Enlisted Performance Report (EPR), rendered for the period 6 April 2001 through 21 December 2001, is declared void and removed from his records. The HQ AFPC/DPPPE evaluation is at Exhibit C. HQ AFPC/DPPPWB states...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-01995
Instead, para 4.7.5.2 is the appropriate reference that applies to the applicant and it states, “…the LOE becomes a referral document attached to the report.” After reviewing the referral EPR, the rater did not attach the LOE to the applicant’s referral EPR, therefore, as an administrative correction, DPPPEP recommends the LOE be attached to the referral EPR with corrections made to the “From and Thru” dates. DPPPWB states the first time the contested report would normally have...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-00823
Should the Board void the report as requested, providing he is otherwise eligible, the applicant’s promotion to E-7 could be reinstated, with an effective date and date of rank of 1 Apr 03. The HQ AFPC/DPPPWB evaluation is at Exhibit D. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS: Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to applicant on 2 May 03 for review and response. We have noted the documents provided with the...
_________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Chief, Inquiries/AFBCMR Section, Enlisted Promotions & Military Testing Branch, AFPC/DPPPWB, reviewed this application and stated the first time the contested report was considered in the promotion process was cycle 99E6 to Technical Sergeant. A complete copy of the evaluation is attached at Exhibit C. The Chief, Performance Evaluation Section, Directorate of Personnel Program Management,...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-02200
The applicant’s request under AFI 36-2401 to have the contested EPR removed from his records was denied by the ERAB. _________________________________________________________________ The following members of the Board considered Docket Number BC-2003-02200 in Executive Session on 8 October 2003, under the provisions of AFI 36- 2603: Mr. Thomas S. Markiewicz, Chair Ms. Martha Maust, Member Mr. Michael V. Barbino, Member By majority vote, the Board voted to deny the application. Exhibit B.
___________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS: The Inquiries/AFBCMR Section, AFPC/DPPPWB, evaluated this application and provided the following information regarding the impact of the two EPRs on the applicant’s promotion consideration: The first time the two EPRs impacted the applicant’s promotion consideration was cycle 94A6 to TSgt (promotions effective Aug 93–Jul 94). We therefore recommend that the contested reports be corrected as indicated...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-01785
In support of her request, the applicant submits a personal statement, and a copy of her application to the Evaluation Reports Appeal Board (ERAB), which included a supporting statement from the rater on the contested report. There was no documentation proving that applicant’s evaluators placed any undue emphasis concerning her failure to properly secure classified material as nothing was documented on her report pertaining to the incident. HQ AFPC/DPPPW states the first time the contested...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-00772
In support of his request, the applicant submits a copy of the Evaluation Reports Appeal Board (ERAB) denial letter dated 10 January 2003, a copy of the contested EPR, a copy of the referral EPR notification, a copy of supporting statements from his raters and additional rater, a copy of his TDY voucher, and his letter concerning his former commander. The applicant submitted an appeal to the Evaluation Reports Appeal Board (ERAB) in December 2002 requesting his EPR for the period 12 May...