RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 00-03287
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
The Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) rendered for the period 12 Jul
97 through 11 Jul 98 be declared void.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
Since the commander could not prove his participation in any alleged
illegal activities, his performance rating should be based on known
facts not speculation or any unsubstantiated thoughts. It is his
opinion that this report reeks of guilty before proven innocent.
Without conviction or actual proof, this report was based on unproven
performance. The commander used the EPR as punishment when he should
have taken the appropriate administrative or disciplinary actions to
slow or stop his future promotion opportunities. The contested report
is an inaccurate assessment of his performance during the contested
period.
In support of the appeal, applicant submits a copy of a redacted
Inspector General (IG) report.
Applicant's complete submission is attached at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The applicant is currently serving in the Regular Air Force in the
grade of master sergeant.
The applicant appealed the contested report under the provisions of
AFI 36-2401 and the appeal was considered and denied by the Evaluation
Reports Appeal Board (ERAB) on 20 Apr 00.
Pursuant to the Board’s request, the Air Force Office of Special
Investigation (AFOSI) provided a copy of the AFOSI Report of
Investigation pertaining to the case (Exhibit C).
The applicant filed an Inspector General (IG) complaint on 12 Nov 98
concerning allegations of reprisal for a protected communication. The
10 Feb 99 Summary Report of Investigation (SROI) concluded that the
evidence did not substantiate the applicant’s allegations (see
attached SROI at Exhibit H).
EPR profile since 1995 reflects the following:
PERIOD ENDING OVERALL EVALUATION
11 Jul 95 5
11 Jul 96 5
11 Jul 97 5
* 11 Jul 98 5
11 Jul 99 5
02 May 00 5
* Contested report.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
The Chief, Inquiries/AFBCMR Section, AFPC/DPPPWB, reviewed this
application and states the first time the report was considered in the
promotion process was for cycle 99E8 to senior master sergeant
(promotions effective Apr 99 - Mar 00). Should the AFBCMR grant his
request, providing the applicant is otherwise eligible, he will be
entitled to supplemental promotion consideration beginning with cycle
99E8.
A complete copy of the evaluation is attached at Exhibit D.
The Chief, SSBs & BCMR Appeals Section, AFMPC/DPMAJA1, also reviewed
this application and recommends denial. In this case, the applicant
was investigated by the OSI and was suspect in criminal activities.
There may not have been enough evidence to pursue UCMJ action against
the ratee; however, the commander (rater’s rater) may have been of the
opinion the member’s traditional values, integrity, and loyalty came
into question as a result of the investigation and elected to document
it on his EPR. They do not know if this markdown is a direct result
of the suspected involvement in criminal activities or just a general
observation during the rating period. Regardless, it is the rater’s
rater’s responsibility as an evaluator to consider all factors
regarding the applicant’s performance during the rating period, to
include professional qualities. His assessment concludes the
applicant merely sets the example for others to follow and does
warrant a rating that indicates the applicant epitomizes the Air Force
professional. He has fulfilled his responsibilities as an evaluator.
An EPR is considered valid, as written, substantial evidence is
required to challenge a report’s accuracy. The applicant does not
provide effective evidence this EPR is an inaccurate documentation of
his performance, nor does the applicant provide any new information to
support this appeal.
A complete copy of their evaluation is attached at Exhibit E.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
The applicant reviewed the opinions and provided a response, which is
at Exhibit 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. After a thorough review
of the evidence of record and applicant’s submission, we are not
persuaded that the report in question should be declared void and
removed from his records. He alleges reprisal for a protected
communication. However, an IG investigation has concluded that the
applicant’s allegation of reprisal for a protected communication was
not substantiated. No evidence has been presented which would lead us
to believe that the findings of the IG were erroneous. His
contentions are duly noted; however, we do not find these assertions,
in and by themselves, sufficiently persuasive to override the
rationale provided by the Air Force. We note the applicant has not
submitted any supporting documentation and has failed to provide
evidence showing the report was not an accurate assessment as
rendered. We therefore agree with the recommendations of the Air
Force 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. Therefore, we find no
compelling basis to recommend granting the relief sought.
_________________________________________________________________
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 30 August 2001, under the provisions of AFI 36-
2603:
Mr. Patrick R. Wheeler, Panel Chair
Ms. Martha Maust, Member
Mr. Philip Sheuerman, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 8 Nov 00, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. OSI Report, withdrawn.
Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/DPPPWB, dated 2 Jan 01.
Exhibit E. Letter, AFPC/DPPPE, dated 9 Jan 01.
Exhibit F. Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 16 Feb 01.
Exhibit G. Applicant's response, dated 9 Mar 01.
Exhibit H. IG Report, withdrawn.
PATRICK R. WHEELER
Panel Chair
On 9 September 1997, the applicant wrote to the 39th Wing IG alleging he had experienced reprisal by his squadron commander for giving a protected statement to an IG investigator during a separate IG investigation on 15 and 19 July 1997. The applicant alleged the squadron commander withheld a senior rater endorsement to [the EPR in question]. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Chief, Inquiries/AFBCMR Section, HQ AFPC/DPPPWB, reviewed...
AF | BCMR | CY1998 | BC-1998-00743
He receive supplemental promotion consideration for promotion to the grade of Chief Master Sergeant (E-9) by the promotion cycle 97E9. A copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit D. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on 4 May 1998 for review and response within 30 days. In view of the foregoing, we recommend the contested report be...
He receive supplemental promotion consideration for promotion to the grade of Chief Master Sergeant (E-9) by the promotion cycle 97E9. A copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit D. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on 4 May 1998 for review and response within 30 days. In view of the foregoing, we recommend the contested report be...
DPPPAB stated that the applicant has failed to provide any information/support from the rating chain on the contested EPR. Air Force policy states that only 120 days of supervision are required before accomplishing an EPR; and the EPR was designed to provide a rating for a specific period of time based on the performance noted during that period, not based on previous performance. He did provide evidence with his application that the performance feedback statement is false.
AF | BCMR | CY1999 | BC-1998-01248
In his proposed AFI 36-2401 appeal, applicant contends that his key duties, task and responsibilities were inaccurate; he should not have been rated by another staff sergeant; the statements by the evaluators are incorrect; and his supervision should not have allowed the unsubstantiated and badly written EPR to be entered in his permanent record. In support of his appeal, applicant provided a copy of Summary Report of Investigation, with his rebuttal comments; a proposed appeal package for...
In his proposed AFI 36-2401 appeal, applicant contends that his key duties, task and responsibilities were inaccurate; he should not have been rated by another staff sergeant; the statements by the evaluators are incorrect; and his supervision should not have allowed the unsubstantiated and badly written EPR to be entered in his permanent record. In support of his appeal, applicant provided a copy of Summary Report of Investigation, with his rebuttal comments; a proposed appeal package for...
In support of her appeal, the applicant provided a personal statement, an Inspector General (IG) Summary Report of Investigation, copies of the contested report and performance feedback worksheets, and other documents associated with the matter under review. The applicant did not provide any information/support from the rating chain on the contested EPR. A complete copy of the DPPPAB evaluation is at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S...
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 | CY2005 | BC-2004-02925
_________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: Applicant’s available military personnel records indicate he enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 6 Dec 82. A complete copy of the AFPC/DPPPWB is at Exhibit F. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION: A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to applicant on 25 Mar 05 for review and response. No evidence has been...
Period Ending Evaluation 4 Mar 94 5 - Immediate Promotion 22 Sep 94 5 8 Aug 95 5 * 2 Nov 95 3 - Consider for Promotion 2 Nov 96 5 15 Nov 97 5 26 Jun 98 5 1 Nov 98 5 * Contested referral report On 23 October 1995, applicant was notified of his commander's intent to impose nonjudicial punishment (Article 15) for committing the following offenses: making a false official statement to his squadron commander regarding the amount of funds in his bank account; presenting false official documents...