RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 01-01426
INDEX CODE: 111.02
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
___________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) for the period ending 27 January 1997
be declared void and removed from his record.
___________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
His rater’s assessment of his duty performance was unjust. His primary
duties were as NCOIC Civil and Preventive Law. In Section V (rater’s
comments) of the EPR dated 27 January 1997, there was nothing describing
his primary duties. He feels his primary duties were intentionally left
out because, during his performance feedback on 18 June 1996 and 19 August
1996 his supervisor listed his primary duties as NCOIC of Civil Law, which
means his supervisor was completely aware of his job description.
In support of his application, he submits an Evaluation Reports Appeal
Board (ERAB) letter dated 25 September 2000, copy of the EPR dated 27
January 1997, and AF Form 948 to include the entire package originally
submitted to the ERAB (Exhibit A).
___________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The applicant contracted his initial enlistment in the Regular Air Force on
12 November 1982. He has continued to serve on active duty, entering his
most recent enlistment on 20 July 2000, when he reenlisted for a period of
four years. He is currently serving in the grade of master sergeant,
having been promoted to that grade with an effective date and a date of
rank of 1 January 1999. The following is a resume of his EPR ratings,
commencing with the report closing 28 February 1994.
PERIOD ENDING PROMOTION RECOMMENDATION
28 Feb 94 5
28 Feb 95 5
28 Feb 96 5
* 27 Jan 97 CRO 5
27 Jan 98 5
27 Jan 99 5
27 Jan 00 5
Note: * Contested Report. A similar appeal by the applicant was considered
and denied by the Evaluation Report Appeal Board.
___________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
The Performance Evaluations Section, AFPC/DPPPEP, indicated the applicant
has failed to provide documentation from his rating chain to support his
allegation that his duties and responsibilities as the NCOIC of Civil Law
and Preventive Law were very extensive, but were not recorded by his rater
on his EPR closing 27 January 1997. Without their support they feel the
EPR is accurate as written. Therefore, DPPPEP recommends the applicant's
request be denied (Exhibit C).
___________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant for
review and response. As of this date, this office has received no response
(Exhibit E).
___________________________________________________________________
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 reviewing all of the
evidence provided, we are not persuaded that the contested report is an
inaccurate depiction of the applicant's performance and demonstrated
potential for the period in question. In the rating process, each
evaluator is required to assess a ratee's performance, honestly and to the
best of their ability. In judging the merits of this case, we took note of
the applicant's contention that the rater’s assessment of his duty
performance was unjust and not reflective of his primary duties as NCOIC
Civil and Preventive Law. However, other than his own assertions, we have
seen no evidence by the applicant which would lead us to believe the rater
abused his discretionary authority, that the rating was based on
inappropriate considerations, or that the report was technically flawed.
Therefore, in the absence of such evidence, the applicant's request 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 31 July 2001, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:
Mr. Joseph A. Roj, Panel Chair
Ms. Nancy W. Drury, Member
Ms. Brenda L. Romine, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 1 May 01, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. AFPC/DPPPEP Letter, dated 4 Jun 01.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 22 Jun 01.
Exhibit E. Applicant’s Response, dated 20 Jul 01, w/atch.
JOSEPH A. ROJ
Panel Chair
The applicant’s request under AFI 36-2401 to have the contested EPR removed from his records was denied by the Evaluation Reports Appeals Board (ERAB). The AFPC/DPPPWB evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit C. AFPC/DPPPEP recommends the application be denied. After a thorough review of the evidence of record and applicant’s submission, we are not persuaded that the contested report is an inaccurate assessment of his performance during the contested rating period.
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....
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-03771
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2003-03771 INDEX CODE: 111.02 XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX COUNSEL: NONE XXXXXXXXXXXX HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) rendered for the period of 3 June 1999 through 30 January 2000 be removed from his records and he receive supplemental promotion consideration. On 22 February...
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 | CY2003 | BC-2002-02727
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 02-02727 INDEX CODE: 111.05 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) rendered for the period 29 Jun 01 through 10 Feb 02, be removed from his records. Evidence has not been presented which would lead us to believe the contested report is not a true and accurate...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-02414
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2006-02414 INDEX CODE: 111.02 XXXXXXX COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 15 FEB 2008 ___________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His enlisted performance report closing 13 Sep 05 be voided. ___________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: HQ AFPC/DPPPEP reviewed...
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 01-02350 INDEX CODE: 111.02 APPLICANTS COUNSEL: None SSN HEARING DESIRED: None _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: The Airman Performance Reports (APRs)/Enlisted Performance Reports (EPRs) for the periods closing 17 Feb 82, 11 Jan 90, 15 Dec 90, 27 Apr 91, and 27 Apr 92 be declared void. The applicant also alleges she received a...
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 01-01882 INDEX CODE: 111.02 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: The Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) rendered for the period 25 Mar 99 through 24 Mar 00 be declared void and removed from her records. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Chief,...
TSgt O--- was removed as his supervisor in November 1997. The DPPPEP evaluation is at Exhibit B. AFPC/DPPPWB reviewed applicant’s request and states that provided he is otherwise eligible, if the 4 Jan 98 EPR were to be voided he would not become a selectee for the 99E6 promotion cycle. The applicant has established that a possible conflict existed between himself and the rater on the report closing 4 January 1998.
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2006-03455
________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: The contested EPR was a Change of Reporting Official (CRO) report covering 188 days of supervision for the period 3 April 2005 through 7 October 2005. To effectively challenge an EPR, it is necessary to hear from all members of the rating chain – not only for support, but also for clarification/explanation, and applicant has failed to provide any information/support from the rating chain on the contested...