RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 01-01375
INDEX CODE: 111.02, 126.04
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) rendered for the period of 27 January
1997 through 26 January 1998 be voided and he receive supplemental
promotion consideration to master sergeant for cycle 99E7.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
His EPR should be removed from his records because the rater signed a blank
form and the rater did not intend to give him an overall rating of “4.”
In support of his request applicant submits a copy of the contested EPR;
personal statements from the rater and indorser; a copy of the Evaluation
Reports Appeal Board (ERAB) decision; and an AF Form 931, Performance
Feedback Worksheet. Applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The applicant contracted his initial enlistment in the Regular Air Force on
15 April 1983. He has continually served on active duty and has been
progressively promoted to the grade of technical sergeant (E-6), effective
and with a date of rank of 1 May 1995. A similar appeal by the applicant
was considered and denied by the ERAB. The following is a resume of his
EPR profile:
PERIOD ENDING PROMOTION RECOMMENDATION
28 Sep 00 5
14 Aug 99 5
14 Aug 98 5
26 Jan 98 4 (Contested Report)
26 Jan 97 5
26 Jan 96 5
30 May 95 5
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
The Chief, Enlisted Promotion and Military Testing Branch, AFPC/DPPPWB,
reviewed applicant’s request and states that the first time the contested
report was considered in the promotion process was cycle 99E7 to master
sergeant. DPPPWB indicated that if the Board voids the report, he would
not be a selectee for either the 99E7 or 00E7 cycles. DPPPWB noted that
the applicant has been tentatively selected for the 01E7 cycle. (See
Exhibit C).
The Chief, Performance Evaluation Section, AFPC/DPPPEP, reviewed
applicant’s request and recommends denial. DPPPEP states that the
applicant did not provide convincing evidence the “4” rating is unjust.
Although the rater alleges his intended ratings were changed after he
signed an original report, his contention is without merit since the
indorser and commander agreed to the “4” rating and the indorser continues
to stand by this rating. A complete copy of this evaluation is at Exhibit
D.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on 22
June 2001 for review and comment. As of this date, this office has
received no response.
_________________________________________________________________
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 careful consideration of
the applicant’s complete submission, to include the supporting statement
provided by his rater, it appears that doubt exists concerning the accuracy
of the contested report. We noted that it was common practice by the unit
orderly room to obtain copies of blank signed performance reports from the
rater. The rater has unequivocally stated that the performance report he
wrote on the applicant prior to his retirement was changed and he was not
advised of this fact. He further stated that he would not have assigned a
“4” promotion recommendation on the contested report. Based on the rater’s
statement and in the absence of evidence to question the integrity of this
evaluator, we believe sufficient doubt has been created as to the accuracy
and fairness of the contested report to warrant its removal from the
applicant’s record. In addition, notwithstanding the opinion of DPPPWB, we
believe the applicant’s corrected record should be reconsidered for
promotion via the supplemental process to ensure he has not been the victim
of a promotion injustice.
_________________________________________________________________
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 27 January 1997 through 26 January 1998
be declared void and removed from his records.
It is further recommended that he be provided supplemental consideration
for promotion to the grade of master sergeant for all appropriate cycles
beginning with cycle 99E7.
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 29 August 2001 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:
Mr. Frederick R. Beaman, III, Panel Chair
Mr. Roscoe Hinton Jr., Member
Mr. E. David Hoard, Member
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 3 May 2001, w/Atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPPPWB, dated 6 June 2001.
Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/DPPPEP, dated 19 June 2001.
Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 22 June 2001.
FREDERICK R. BEAMAN, III
Panel Chair
AFBCMR 01-01375
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 Enlisted Performance Report, AF
Form 910, rendered for the period 27 January 1997 through 26 January 1998
be, and hereby is, declared void and removed from his records.
It is further directed that he be provided supplemental consideration
for promotion to the grade of master sergeant for all appropriate cycles
beginning with cycle 99E7.
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
When requesting an entire report be voided, the applicant must take into consideration that any complimentary comments on the contested report will also be removed from the records if the request is approved. The report can be corrected administratively by changing the rater’s grade to master sergeant, closing the EPR on 9 October 1997 (the day before the member was demoted and moved to another section), and the “number days” supervision to 192. A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation...
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...
Therefore, DPPPAB recommended the Board direct the removal of the mid-term feedback date from the contested EPR and add the following statement: “Ratee has established that no mid-term feedback session was provided in accordance with AFI 36-2403.” A complete copy of this evaluation is appended at Exhibit D. APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to applicant on 10 Sep 99 for review and response. The mid-term feedback date be removed...
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...
She also states that she believes the report to be unjust because of the personality conflicts that existed between her, her rater, and her rater’s rater that exploded after she approached the squadron commander about unprofessional practices she observed going on in her workcenter. After reviewing the evidence of record, the Board is convinced that the contested report is not an accurate assessment of applicant's performance during the period in question. DOUGLAS J. HEADY Panel...
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 01-01274 INDEX CODE: 111.02 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: The Enlisted Performance Report (EPR), rendered for the period 9 January 1989 through 8 January 1990, be changed to reflect a promotion recommendation of “5.” _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT...
A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit B. A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation, with attachment, is attached at Exhibit C. APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Applicant reviewed the Air Force evaluations and provided a two-page response with a copy of her most recent EPR closing 15 Feb 99. Initially when applicant appealed the contested report under the provisions of AFI 36-2401, she asserted that the report did not accurately reflect her...
Should the board void the report entirely, or upgrade his EPR closing 31 Aug 99, the applicant will be entitled to supplemental promotion consideration for cycle 00E7 promotion cycle to master sergeant. A complete copy of the advisory is attached at Exhibit D. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 10 August 2001, for review and response within...
In support of his request, the applicant submits a personal statement, copies of his AFI 36-2401 application, the Evaluations Reports Appeal Board (ERAB) decision, a statement from his indorser and additional documents associated with the issues cited in his contentions. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Enlisted Promotion and Military Testing Branch, HQ AFPC/DPPPWB, stated that the first time the contested report was considered in...