RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 01-00192
INDEX CODE: 111.00, 111.02
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: YES
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
The Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) rendered for the period
2 May 96 through 31 Mar 97 be declared void and removed from her
records.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
The ratings and comments are inconsistent with prior or subsequent
evaluations; the comments are inconsistent with assigned ratings;
a personality conflict existed between herself and the rater; she
did not receive counseling or feedback; both the rater and
indorser made unfavorable comments on the report; and, the rater
did not personally observe her from Oct 96 through Mar 97.
Applicant’s complete submission is attached at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The applicant’s Total Active Federal Military Service Date
(TAFMSD) is 7 Mar 84. She is currently serving in the Regular Air
Force (RegAF) in the grade of technical sergeant, effective, and
with a date of rank (DOR) of 1 Sep 00.
Applicant’s EPR profile since 1989 follows:
PERIOD ENDING OVERALL EVALUATION
6 Dec 89 5
6 Dec 90 5
17 Sep 91 4
29 Feb 92 3
1 Mar 93 5
1 Mar 94 5
1 Mar 95 5
29 Jun 95 5
1 May 96 4
* 31 Mar 97 3
31 Mar 98 5
31 Mar 99 5
29 Jul 99 5
29 Jul 00 5
* Contested report.
A similar appeal was submitted under AFI 36-2401, Correcting
Officer and Enlisted Evaluations Reports, which was denied by the
Evaluation Reports Appeal Board (ERAB).
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
The Chief, Inquiries/AFBCMR Section, AFPC/DPPPWB, reviewed this
application and indicated that the first time the contested report
was considered in the promotion process was cycle 98E6 to
technical sergeant (promotions effective Aug 98 - Jul 99). Should
the Board void the report in its entirety, providing she is
otherwise eligible, the applicant will be entitled to supplemental
promotion consideration beginning with cycle 98E6. However, she
will not become a selectee during cycles 98E6 or 99E6 if the Board
grants the request. The applicant became a selectee during the
00E6 cycle with a DOR and effective date of 1 Sep 00.
A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at
Exhibit C.
The Chief, Performance Evaluation Section, AFPC/DPPPEP, also
reviewed this application and indicated that while the applicant
believes the ratings and comments on the EPR are inconsistent with
her prior and subsequent evaluations, that does not render the
report erroneous or unjust. A report evaluates performance during
a specific period and reflects a member’s performance, conduct,
and potential at that time, in that position.
While the applicant believes the comments are inconsistent with
assigned ratings, her EPR documents her excellent work in claims
and her inability to perform well in the military justice area.
Although she does not believe she should have been rated on a job
she did not perform daily (military justice), to be awarded Air
Force Specialty Code (AFSC) 5J051, she should have been
experienced in general office management and preparing and
processing courts-martial and other military justice actions or
claims for and against the United States Government. It therefore
follows that she should be evaluated on her performance of those
duties.
DPPPEP does not believe that a personality conflict existed
between the applicant and the rater. She did not provide official
findings from an Inspector General (IG) or Military Equal
Opportunity investigation substantiating a personality conflict
existed between her and her rater. DPPPEP points out that she
received an overall “3” and a “5” promotion recommendation from
the same rater on the 1997 and 1998 reports.
In regard to counseling and performance feedback, lack of
counseling or feedback, by itself, is not sufficient to challenge
the accuracy or justness of a report. Evaluators must confirm
they did not provide counseling or feedback and that this directly
resulted in an unfair evaluation.
In regard to applicant’s allegations that the rater and indorser
made unfavorable comments on the report, she did not provide any
evidence from credible sources to prove her allegations, only her
opinion of the contested EPR.
While the applicant contends her rater did not personally observe
her performance between Oct 96 and Mar 97, many individuals have
to perform duties without the benefit of direct daily supervision;
therefore, separation alone is not a good argument. The applicant
did not provide documentation showing that her evaluators had no
valid basis on which to assess her performance.
DPPPEP further states that, while not specifically assigned
military justice duties, the applicant was required to perform
them when tasked. The Paralegal Career Field encompasses
functions relating to military justice, including court reporting,
administrative boards reporting, accident and collateral
investigations, depositions, and other legal proceedings.
DPPPEP recommends denial of applicant’s request. They state that
Air Force policy is that an evaluation report is accurate as
written when it becomes a matter of record and to effectively
challenge an EPR, it is necessary to hear from all the members of
the rating chain-not only for support but also for
clarification/explanation. The applicant has failed to provide
any information/support from the rating chain on the contested
EPR.
A complete copy of their evaluation is attached at Exhibit D.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
Applicant reviewed the Air Force evaluations and provided an eight-
page letter responding to the advisory opinions. She states, in
part, that her life was so altered by this process that she would
like the Board to know that she is happily married and has three
well-mannered boys. She requests a positive decision in her favor
and approval of her appeal to have the contested EPR voided in its
entirety and that she be considered for supplemental promotion.
Applicant’s complete response, with attachments, is attached 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. 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 EPR closing 31 Mar 97
should be declared void and removed from her records. Her
contentions are duly noted; however, we do not find these
uncorroborated assertions, in and by themselves, sufficiently
persuasive to override the rationale provided by the Air Force.
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 her burden that she has
suffered either an error or an injustice. Therefore, we find no
compelling basis to recommend granting the relief sought.
4. The applicant’s case is adequately documented and it has not
been shown that a personal appearance, with or without counsel,
will add to our understanding of the issue(s) 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 19 June 2001, under the provisions of Air
Force Instruction 36-2603:
Ms. Peggy E. Gordon, Panel Chair
Mr. Grover Dunn, Member
Mr. Roger E. Willmeth, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 6 Nov 00, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPPPWB, dated 6 Feb 01.
Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/DPPPEP, dated 13 Feb 01.
Exhibit E. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 23 Mar 01.
Exhibit F. Letter fr applicant, dated 20 Apr 01, w/atchs.
PEGGY E. GORDON
Panel Chair
If the referral EPR closing 11 Dec 96 is removed as requested, the applicant would normally be entitled to supplemental promotion consideration to technical sergeant beginning with the 97E6 cycle provided she is recommended by her commander and is otherwise qualified. However, as a result of her circumstances, the applicant has not received an EPR subsequent to the referral EPR (reason for ineligibility), has not taken the required promotion tests, and has not been considered or recommended...
AF | BCMR | CY1999 | BC-1998-01229
DPPPA further states that an evaluation report is considered to represent the rating chain’s best judgment at the time it is rendered and once a report is accepted for file, only strong evidence to the contrary warrants correction or removal from an individual’s record. 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. Exhibit E. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 13 Jul 98.
DPPPA further states that an evaluation report is considered to represent the rating chain’s best judgment at the time it is rendered and once a report is accepted for file, only strong evidence to the contrary warrants correction or removal from an individual’s record. 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. Exhibit E. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 13 Jul 98.
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. ...
_________________________________________________________________ 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...
He also believes the performance feedback worksheet (PFW) does not “mirror” the EPR and his rater based his evaluation “on the moment” and disregarded the Enlisted Evaluation System (EES). _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Chief, Inquiries/AFBCMR Section, AFPC/DPPPWB, reviewed this application and indicated that the first time the report was considered in the promotion process was cycle 98E6 to technical sergeant (promotions...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-02787
_________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: The “4” rating does not match the accomplishments for the reporting period; the feedback AF Form 931 marked to the extreme right margin stated he needed little or no improvement; he received no counseling from his supervisor if there was need for improvement from the last feedback prior to EPR closeout; his entire career reflects superior performance in all areas of responsibilities past and present,...
A similar appeal was filed under AFI 36-2401, Correcting Officer and Enlisted Evaluation Reports, which was denied by the Evaluation Reports Appeal Board (ERAB) on 2 Apr 98. 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. A complete copy of their evaluation, with attachment, is attached at Exhibit D. __________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S...
_________________________________________________________________ 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...
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2007-00452
In support of his request, the applicant submits copies of his EPRs; performance feedback evaluations; awards and decorations; letters of support; leave and earnings statements; temporary duty (TDY) documentation; excerpts of Air Force Instruction (AFI) 36-2406; Application for Correction/Removal of Evaluation Reports and correspondence concerning supplemental board consideration. DPPPEP states a report is not erroneous or unfair because the applicant believes it contributed to a...