RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBERS: 01-00271
INDEX CODE 111.02 131.09
COUNSEL: None
HEARING DESIRED: No
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
The Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) closing 6 Dec 99 be upgraded
from an overall rating of “4” to “5.”
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
His rater mistakenly compared his performance with that of others in
the same grade but different Air Force Specialty Codes (AFSC). When
the rater realized his error, he concluded that the EPR should have an
overall rating of “5.” The rater, indorser and commander all concur
with this upgrade and provide supporting statements.
The applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 11 Jan 84 and is
currently serving in the grade of staff sergeant (date of rank: 1 Sep
93). Both presently and during the period in question, he was assigned
to OL-D HQ AFSPC/DR, Buckley ANGB, CO, as a workgroup manager with an
AFSC of 3A051.
The applicant’s last 12 performance reports have had overall ratings
of “5” with the following exceptions: The contested report (“4”), the
report closing 20 Apr 90 (“4”), and the report closing 13 Apr 91
(“3”). The rater of the contested EPR also signed the preceding EPR
as the indorser and gave the applicant an overall rating of “5.” A
copy of this report is also provided at Exhibit B.
The applicant filed similar appeals under the provisions of AFI 36-
2401 on 28 Feb 00, 24 May 00 and 17 Aug 00; however, the Evaluation
Reports Appeal Board (ERAB) denied his appeals on 4 Apr 00, 25 Jul 00
and 18 Oct 00, respectively.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
The Chief, Inquiries/AFBCMR Section, HQ AFPC/DPPPWB, reviewed the
appeal and advised that if the Board voided or upgraded the contested
report, the applicant would be entitled to supplemental promotion
consideration to technical sergeant beginning with cycle 00E6 and, if
otherwise eligible, he would become a selectee.
A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit C.
The Chief, Performance Evaluation Section, HQ AFPC/DPPPEP, reviewed
the appeal and notes that the pertinent directive allows for the fact
that it is not always possible to compare a ratee with others in the
same grade and AFSC. If evaluators do not know any other ratee
serving in a particular grade and AFSC, they may rate according to
their opinions and impressions of the general level of performance
during that reporting period. The author also points out that the
rater signed the applicant’s preceding EPR as the indorser and gave
him a “5” promotion recommendation. The rater did not indicate with
whom he compared the applicant’s performance during that reporting
period. The rater did not err when he initially prepared the
contested report. Willingness by evaluators to upgrade a report is not
a valid reason for doing so. Denial is recommended.
A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit D.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
The applicant explains that the rater wants to correct the mistake of
comparing him to operator personnel with a totally different job
responsibility rather than with other 3A0 personnel located in the
same building and in the same grade. After discovering the mistake,
the following EPR was a “5,” something he should have gotten on the
contested report. He deserves to be awarded an honest report, not an
unfair rating.
The applicant’s complete response, with attachments, 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. We note that each of
the rating chain members of the contested EPR provided statements
supporting the applicant’s request. As we have no basis to question
their assertions that the applicant’s performance for the period in
question was inaccurately evaluated for the reasons indicated, we are
persuaded that the report should be upgraded as requested. Therefore,
to offset any possibility of an injustice, the applicant’s records
should be corrected as indicated below.
_________________________________________________________________
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT:
The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force
relating to APPLICANT, be corrected to show that the Promotion
Recommendation in Section IV of the Enlisted Performance Report, AF
Form 910, rendered for the period 7 December 1998 through 6 December
1999, be upgraded from a “4” to a “5.”
It is further recommended that he be provided supplemental
consideration for promotion to the grade of technical sergeant for
all appropriate cycles beginning with cycle 00E6.
If AFPC discovers any adverse factors during or subsequent to
supplemental consideration that are separate and apart, and
unrelated to the issues involved in this application, that would
have rendered the individual ineligible for the promotion, such
information will be documented and presented to the board for a
final determination on the individual's qualification for the
promotion.
If supplemental promotion consideration results in the selection for
promotion to the higher grade, immediately after such promotion the
records shall be corrected to show that he was promoted to the
higher grade on the date of rank established by the supplemental
promotion and that he is entitled to all pay, allowances, and
benefits of such grade as of that date.
_________________________________________________________________
The following members of the Board considered this application in
Executive Session on 3 May 2001, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:
Mr. Henry Romo Jr., Panel Chair
Mr. William H. Anderson, Member
Mr. John E. B. Smith, Member
All members voted to correct the records, as recommended. The
following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 2 Jan 01, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPPWB, dated 7 Feb 01.
Exhibit D. Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPPEP, dated 8 Mar 01.
Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 23 Mar 01.
Exhibit F. Letter, Applicant, dated 12 Apr 01, w/atch.
HENRY ROMO JR.
Panel Chair
AFBCMR 01-00271
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 , be corrected to show that the Promotion
Recommendation in Section IV of the Enlisted Performance Report, AF
Form 910, rendered for the period 7 December 1998 through 6 December
1999, be upgraded from a “4” to a “5.”
It is further directed that he be provided supplemental
consideration for promotion to the grade of technical sergeant for all
appropriate cycles beginning with cycle 00E6.
If AFPC discovers any adverse factors during or subsequent to
supplemental consideration that are separate and apart, and unrelated
to the issues involved in this application, that would have rendered
the individual ineligible for the promotion, such information will be
documented and presented to the board for a final determination on the
individual's qualification for the promotion.
If supplemental promotion consideration results in the selection
for promotion to the higher grade, immediately after such promotion
the records shall be corrected to show that he was promoted to the
higher grade on the date of rank established by the supplemental
promotion and that he is entitled to all pay, allowances, and benefits
of such grade as of that date.
JOE G. LINEBERGER
Director
Air Force Review Boards Agency
_________________________________________________________________ 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...
He further states he received a rating of “three” on his last EPR because he was not within the weight standards. The EPR closing Jun 00 indicates he continued to struggle to meet Air Force weight standards, which negatively affected his overall promotion potential and showed his failure to meet the standards over a prolonged period of time. Further, they state that the applicant failed to provide sufficient evidence or evaluator support to warrant upgrading the report.
_________________________________________________________________ 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,...
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. DPPPEP does not believe that a personality conflict existed between the applicant and the rater. A complete copy of their evaluation is...
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....
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...
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.
_________________________________________________________________ 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.
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. ...