RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 01-00016
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
The Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) rendered for the period 1 May
99 to 30 Sep be declared void.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
The contested report is incorrect and unjust in its entirety because
she did not have enough days supervision under her supervisor to
generate a report. Applicant submitted a statement from the
Superintendent of Customer Support, Mission Support Squadron, PC-III
computer generated documents showing change of rater and email
messages supporting her appeal.
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 MSgt (E-7).
The applicant appealed the contested report under the provisions of
AFI 36-2401, Correction of Officer and Enlisted Evaluation Reports, 1
Aug 97 and the appeal was considered and returned without action by
the Evaluation Review Appeals Board (ERAB) because the application was
incomplete.
EPR profile since 1995 reflects the following:
PERIOD ENDING OVERALL EVALUATION
27 Sep 95 5
17 Jun 96 5
9 Jun 97 5
9 Jun 98 5
30 Apr 99 5
* 30 Sep 99 4
30 Sep 00 5
* Contested report.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
The Chief, Performance Evaluation Section, AFPC/DPPPEP, reviewed this
application recommended denial. The Air Force policy is that an
evaluation report is accurate as written when it becomes a matter of
record. To effectively challenge an EPR, it is necessary to hear from
the members of the rating chain-not only for support, but also for
clarification/explanation.
A complete copy of the evaluation is attached at Exhibit C.
The Chief, Inquiries/Special Actions Section, AFPC/DPPPWB, also
reviewed this application and states that based on the applicant’s
date of rank for master sergeant, the first time the report will be
considered for promotion will be cycle 02E8 to senior master sergeant
(promotions effective Apr 02 - Mar 03). Should the Board grant her
request, providing the applicant is otherwise eligible, she will be
entitled to supplemental promotion consideration beginning with cycle
02E8. However, should a favorable decision be received by 1 Feb 02
there will be sufficient time to make the correction to her records
prior to the time the 02E8 Evaluation Board convenes and supplemental
consideration would not be required.
A complete copy of their evaluation is attached at Exhibit D.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
The applicant reviewed the opinions and provided a response, which is
at Exhibit F.
_________________________________________________________________
THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:
1. The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by existing
law or regulations.
2. The application was timely filed.
3. Sufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate
the existence of probable error or injustice. After a thorough review
of the evidence of record, we are persuaded that the contested report
should be declared void and removed from her records. In our opinion,
after reviewing the PC-III computer generated reports, some doubt
exists regarding whether the number of days of supervision by the
rating chain for the period 1 May 99 to 30 Sep 99 was sufficient to
generate a performance report. It appears that during the contested
time period, the applicant was apparently detailed to another base
nearby for 59 days to provide support for the Protocol Office. While
the applicant has not provided statements from the rating chain, based
on the evidence of record, we are persuaded that any doubt should be
resolved in her favor. Therefore, to preclude any further injustice
to the applicant, we recommend that the contested report be removed
from her records. As noted by the Air Force, the first time the
contested report will be considered in the promotion process will be
cycle 02E8, therefore, it is not necessary to provide her with
supplemental promotion consideration.
_________________________________________________________________
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT:
The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force
relating to APPLICANT, be corrected to show that the Enlisted
Performance Report, AF Form 910, rendered for the period 1 May 1999
through 30 September 1999, be declared void and removed from her
records.
_________________________________________________________________
The following members of the Board considered this application in
Executive Session on 30 May 2001, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:
Ms. Charlene M. Bradley, Panel Chair
Mr. Laurence M. Groner, Member
Ms. Martha Maust, Member
All members voted to correct the records, as recommended. The
following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 28 Dec 00, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPPPEP, dated 6 Mar 01.
Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/DPPPWB, 18 Jan 01
Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 16 Mar 01.
Exhibit F. Applicant's Response, dated 25 Apr 01.
CHARLENE M. BRADLEY
Panel Chair
AFBCMR 01-00016
MEMORANDUM FOR THE CHIEF OF STAFF
Having received and considered the recommendation of the Air
Force Board for Correction of Military Records and under the authority
of Section 1552, Title 10, United States Code (70A Stat 116), it is
directed that:
The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air
Force relating to APPLICANT, be corrected to show that the Enlisted
Performance Report, AF Form 910, rendered for the period 1 May 1999
through 30 September 1999, be, and hereby is, declared void and
removed from her records.
JOE G. LINEBERGER
Director
Air Force Review Boards Agency
Too much emphasis was placed on a Letter of Admonition (LOA); there was bias by the additional rater; and, the number of days of supervision is incorrect. The HQ AFPC/DPPPEP evaluation is at Exhibit C. HQ AFPC/DPPPWB stated that the first time the contested report was considered in the promotion process was Cycle 01E7 to master sergeant (E-7), promotions effective Aug 01 - Jul 02. However, they do not, in the Board majority’s opinion, support a finding that the evaluators were unable to...
However, based on the supporting statement from the former MPF chief and the superior ratings the applicant has received before and since, the majority of the Board believes the possibility exists that the contested EPR may be flawed. Therefore, in order to offset the possibility of an injustice, the Board majority concludes that any doubt should be resolved in this applicant’s favor by voiding the 31 Jul 99 EPR from his records and granting him supplemental promotion consideration. ...
_________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: HQ AFPC/DPPPWB addressed the supplemental promotion consideration issue should the applicant’s request be approved. DPPPWB stated that the first time the contested report was considered in the promotion process was Cycle 97E5 to staff sergeant (E-5), promotions effective Sep 97 - Aug 98. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Having...
Both the commander and the indorser provide information on why although they originally supported the rating given the applicant, later determined that it was not a fair or objective evaluation. The complete evaluation is at Exhibit D. _______________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant responded to the Air Force evaluations. Exhibit F. Memorandum, Applicant, dated 15 Nov 01.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 02-01667 INDEX CODE: 111.02 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His Enlisted Performance Report (EPR), rendered for the period 2 Feb 97 through 1 Feb 98, be replaced with the reaccomplished EPR provided; and, that he be provided supplemental promotion consideration to the grade of senior master...
AF | BCMR | CY2002 | BC-2002-01006
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 02-01006 INDEX NUMBER: 111.02 XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX COUNSEL: None XXX-XX-XXXX HEARING DESIRED: No ___________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: All Enlisted Evaluation Reports (EPRs) rendered on him beginning with the report closing 24 Feb 94 and ending with the report closing 24 Jan 00 be voided and removed from his records. While...
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBERS: 01-02507 INDEX CODE 111.02 111.03 111.05 COUNSEL: None HEARING DESIRED: Not Indicated _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: The Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) closing 12 May 99 be declared void and removed from his records _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: His evaluators were...
Except for the contested report and a 2 Dec 91 EPR having an overall rating of “4,” all of the applicant’s performance reports since Dec 90 have had overall ratings of “5.” Since the Article 15’s suspended reduction expired on 12 Aug 96, prior to the 31 Dec 96 Promotion Eligibility Cutoff Date (PECD) for promotion cycle 97E6, the Article 15 did not affect the applicant’s eligibility for promotion consideration to technical sergeant for that cycle. ...
After reviewing the supporting documentation submitted by the applicant, we believe that some doubt exists as to whether the rater and indorser were biased in their assessment of applicant’s performance due to a possible personality conflict between the applicant and these evaluators. Further, the statement from the applicant’s former commander, during a portion of the contested time period, reveals that personalities possibly played a part in the ratings on the contested report. TERRY A....
_________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: The EPR was not an accurate assessment of her work performance for the rating period in question. The EPR evaluates the performance during a specified period and reflects the performance, conduct and potential of the member at that time, in that position. She feels with the increased workload of the office that her supervisor was frustrated; but why should she be punished with a downgraded EPR when...