RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 00-02733
INDEX CODE: 111.02
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: YES
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
The Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) rendered for the period 29 Jun
98 through 28 Jun 99 be declared void and removed from his records.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
The contested report was an act of reprisal for a failed court-martial
and a blatant attempt to end his career. Originally, the EPR was
written to close out on 28 Feb 99, as it still should have due to a
change of reporting official (CRO). However, the CRO was not recorded
and the EPR was extended to include information from the court-martial
after his acquittal. He believes the EPR was unjust and should be
removed.
In support of his appeal, the applicant provided an expanded
statement, copies of EPRs, performance feedback worksheets (PFWs),
nominations for awards, letters of congratulations and three-day pass,
a certificate of achievement, electronic mail, and documentation
pertaining to the court-martial.
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
senior master sergeant, having been promoted to that grade on 1 May
98. His Total Active Federal Military Service Date (TAFMSD) is 25 Sep
81.
Applicant's EPR profile since 1991 follows:
PERIOD ENDING EVALUATION
15 Mar 91 5
24 Feb 92 5
5 Apr 93 5
5 Apr 94 5
11 Sep 94 Removed by Order of the
Secretary of the Air Force
28 Jun 96 5
28 Jun 97 5
28 Jun 98 5
* 28 Jun 99 5
1 Jun 00 5
* Contested report.
Available documentation indicates that the applicant was charged with
conspiring with another individual at their work center to take
controlled test material from that individual in the form of the USAF
Supervisory Examination (USAFSE), photocopy the exam, and review the
copy or actual test material prior to taking the exam; and, wrongfully
taking, reviewing, having access to, and reproducing actual test
material in the form of the actual test material in the form of the
USAFSE, and by reviewing illegal study material that revealed the
specific contents of actual test material. The applicant pleaded and
was found not guilty of the charges.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
The Enlisted Promotion and Military Testing Branch, AFPC/DPPPWB,
reviewed this application and indicated that if the report is voided
in its entirety, or changed significantly, providing he is otherwise
eligible, the applicant would be entitled to supplemental promotion
consideration beginning with cycle 00E9, providing he is not selected
during the initial 00E9 cycle.
A complete copy of the DPPPWB evaluation is at Exhibit C.
The Evaluation Programs Branch, AFPC/DPPPE, reviewed this application
and recommended denial. According to DPPPE, the applicant has failed
to provide any proof or documentation to invalidate the contested
report. The report contained no comments regarding his court-martial
or behavior that led to the court-martial or any other derogatory
information. No evidence of reprisal is provided, nor did any
reprisal action seem to exist. He has not proved that a CRO ever
occurred upon his temporary reassignment pending completion of the
investigation and subsequent court-martial. No improper procedures or
documentation existed regarding the processing of the report. In
DPPPE’s view, the report is valid as written.
A complete copy of the DPPPE evaluation, with attachment, is at
Exhibit D.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
In his initial response to the advisory opinions, the applicant
indicated that the original EPR provided was the smoking gun in this
case. It provided proof of intent to CRO after his return. It
provided clear evidence of his performance during the reporting
period, and clearly showed intent to harm his career when it was
changed well after the reporting period with significant indorsements
and information removed. A review of the feedbacks, awards,
statements and all the provided documentation, will clear show that
the contested report was unjust and an act of reprisal.
Applicant provided a subsequent response to an electronic mail (e-
mail) from the rater’s rater that was attached to the advisory opinion
from AFPC/DPPPE, but was not previously provided to him with the
opinion. In his response, the applicant indicated that he remains
steadfast in his belief that the contested report was an act of
reprisal, and that the statement from the rater’s rater is not true.
He believes that he has provided sufficient information to demonstrate
that the report was filled with errors and intentional actions aimed
at ending his career. It was not a measure of his performance, but
was an obvious act of reprisal. These types of actions must be
corrected/eliminated if there is to be a truly just system.
Applicant’s total responses and additional documentary evidence are
attached at Exhibits F and G.
_________________________________________________________________
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, or was based on
factors other than his performance, we adopt AFPC/DPPPE’s rationale
and conclude that no basis exists to recommend granting the relief
sought in this application.
4. The applicant's case is adequately documented and it has not been
shown that a personal appearance with or without counsel will
materially add to our understanding of the issues involved.
Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorably considered.
_________________________________________________________________
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 Apr 01, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:
Mrs. Barbara A. Westgate, Chair
Mrs. Carolyn J. Watkins, Member
Mr. Clarence D. Long III, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 4 Oct 00, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPPPWB, dated 26 Oct 00.
Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/DPPPE, dated 9 Nov 00, w/atch.
Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 8 Dec 00 and 15 Dec 01,
w/atchs.
Exhibit F. Letter, applicant, dated 27 Dec 00, w/atch.
Exhibit G. Letter, applicant, dated 12 Mar 01, w/atch.
BARBARA A. WESTGATE
Chair
Although the applicant did not submit a request to remove the EPR until after the convening of the 00E9 Evaluation Board, DPPPWB believes the circumstances of his case would warrant supplemental promotion consideration if the Board approves his request. A complete copy of their evaluation is attached at Exhibit D. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR STAFF EVALUATION: Complete copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to...
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...
He also provided documentation presented with his appeal submitted under the provisions of AFI 36-2401 to the Evaluation Reports Appeal Board (ERAB), which included copies of the contested reports; a Performance Feedback Worksheet, dated 14 Mar 96; documentation associated with a letter of reprimand received during the contested rating period; documentation associated with his training records; and several statements of character reference from co-workers and acquaintances. While...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-02650
He retired from the Air Force on 31 Jul 03. DPPP states he was time-in-grade eligible for senior rater endorsement based on the new DOR at the time of the 30 Sep 01 report. In this respect, we note that based on the applicant’s original 1 Jun 01 date of rank (DOR) to the grade of senior master sergeant, he was ineligible for promotion consideration to the grade of chief master sergeant prior to his 31 Jul 03 retirement.
Rather than closing out the report, the commander removed the rater’s name from the reporting official block, assumed the duties of his reporting official, and submitted the report as if he had been his (applicant’s) supervisor for the previous 332 days. However, if the Board recommends removing the report, the applicant will be entitled to supplemental promotion consideration beginning with the 99E8 cycle, provided he is recommended by the commander and is otherwise eligible. A complete...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-01301
In addition, the dates indicated on the EPR as the dates of initial or mid-term feedback were falsified, as feedback was never performed. The DPPPE evaluation is at Exhibit C. AFPC/DPPPWB states should the EPR be removed, the applicant will receive supplemental promotion consideration for promotion cycle 04E6. The DPPPWB evaluation is at Exhibit D. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Copies of the Air Force...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-00432
In support of her appeal, applicant submitted a personal statement, dated 31 Jan 03; a copy of her statement to the ERAB, dated 14 Jan 02; a copy of an MFR from her former element chief, dated 3 Aug 01; a copy of her EPR closing 16 Oct 01 and an AF Form 931, Performance Feedback Worksheet (AB thru TSgt), dated 5 Jul 01. Air Force policy states it is the rating chain’s responsibility to “assess and document what the ratee did, how well he or she did it, and the ratee’s potential based on...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-01161
___________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: Applicant states that no documented evidence exists that his performance had been anything less than exceptional. With the exception of the contested EPR closing 25 January 2000, applicant’s performance report from 1992 reflect an overall rating of “5”. ___________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPPPEP reviewed this application and indicates that...
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.
The applicant’s board score for the 99E8 board was 397.50. The applicant did provide a letter of recommendation from the commander supporting the upgrading of the EPR ratings and changes to his original comments. It is unreasonable to conclude the commander now, over 10 years later, has a better understanding of the applicant’s duty performance for that time period.