RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 01-01599
INDEX NUMBER: 111.02
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) closing 14 June 2000 be upgraded
from a “two” referral report to a “four or five” non-referral report.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
He works in the mobility section, which supports the safety of
individuals in the event of war. The comments on his job and ability
were very accurate. In June 2000, his office passed the inspection
with a rating of “excellent.”
After reviewing his current EPR and comparing it to his last EPR, a
rating of “four or five” would be more appropriate for his overall
performance in the Air Force from Jun 99 to Jun 00. He further states
he received a rating of “three” on his last EPR because he was not
within the weight standards. He excels in all areas except for not
being within the weight standards. His only set back was his weight.
His says his failure to maintain Air Force weight standards has not
impaired his duty performance or caused misconduct on his part. As of
January 2001, he is no longer on the Weight Management Program.
In support of his appeal, applicant submitted a personal statement and
a copy of the contested report.
Applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
Information extracted from the Personnel Data System (PDS) reflects
applicant’s Total Active Federal Military Service Date (TAFMSD) as 1
December 1992. He is currently serving in the grade of Senior Airman
(SrA), with a date of rank (DOR) of 27 January 2001.
A resume of applicant’s EPR profile follows:
PERIOD CLOSING OVERALL EVALUATION
12 Sep 94 3
12 Sep 95 4
12 Sep 96 4
12 Sep 97 4
12 Sep 98 3
14 Jun 99 3
* 14 Jun 00 2
06 Nov 00 4
* Contested Report
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
The Chief, Inquiries/AFBCMR Section, HQ AFPC/DPPPWB, reviewed the
application in regard to supplemental promotion consideration should
the application be approved. Based on the applicant’s DOR to SrA of
27 Jan 01, he would meet the time-in-grade requirement to SSgt for the
01E5 cycle. However, the applicant was nonrecommended by his
commander in Apr 01, which renders him automatically ineligible for
promotion for this cycle. Since the EPR closing 14 Jun 00, has not
been considered in the promotion process for any previous cycles, even
if the Board should choose to upgrade it, no supplemental
consideration would be required.
A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit C.
The Chief, Performance Evaluation Section, HQ AFPC/DPPPEP, reviewed
this application and recommended denial based on the evidence
provided. They state that when completing Section IV, raters consider
the ratee’s performance and promotion potential, as well as how the
ratee compares with others of similar grade and AFSC. The EPR closing
Jun 99 cites the applicant’s entry into the weight management program
(WMP). 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. Air Force policy states an evaluation
report is accurate as written when it becomes a matter of record.
Further, they state that the applicant failed to provide sufficient
evidence or evaluator support to warrant upgrading the report.
A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit D.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
On 18 July 2001, a copy of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to
the applicant for review and comment within 30 days (Exhibit E). As
of this date, no response has been received by this office.
_________________________________________________________________
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 warranting partial relief.
After reviewing the comments on the report, the majority of the Board
found the rater and indorser narrative comments inconsistent with the
markings on the front side of the report. In view of this, the Board
majority believes that the EPR rendered for the period of 15 June 1999
to 14 June 2000 should be amended to change the overall rating to “3”
rather than “2.” The applicant’s request for the EPR to be upgraded
to a “four or five” was considered; however, the majority of the Board
believes that the report should remain a referral report because
applicant was not in compliance with the weight management standards
during the period in question. Therefore, the majority of the Board
recommend his records be amended to the extent indicated below.
_________________________________________________________________
RECOMMENDATION OF THE BOARD
The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force
relating to APPLICANT, be corrected to show that the AF Form 910,
Enlisted Performance (AB thru TSgt), rendered for the period 15 June
1999 through 14 June 2000, be, and hereby is amended, in Section IV
(Promotion Recommendation) Rater’s Recommendation and Indorser’s
Recommendation, to reflect a rating of “3” (Consider), rather than “2”
(Not Recommended at this Time).
_________________________________________________________________
The following members of the Board considered this application in
Executive Session on 23 August 2001, under the provisions of AFI 36-
2603:
Mr. Joseph A. Roj, Panel Chair
Ms. Olga M. Crerar, Member
Ms. Brenda L. Romine, Member
The majority of the Board voted to grant the applicant’s request to
change his rating on the report closing 14 June 2000. Mr. Roj voted
to deny the request and did not desire to submit a minority report.
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 7 May 01, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPPWB, dated 19 Jun 01, w/atch.
Exhibit D. Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPPEP, dated 17 Jul 01.
Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 20 Jul 01.
JOSEPH A. ROJ
Panel Chair
AFBCMR 01-01599
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
AF Form 910, Enlisted Performance (AB thru TSgt), rendered for the
period 15 June 1999 through 14 June 2000, be, and hereby is
amended, in Section IV (Promotion Recommendation) Rater’s
Recommendation and Indorser’s Recommendation, to reflect a rating
of “3” (Consider), rather than “2” (Not Recommended at this Time).
JOE G. LINEBERGER
Director
Air Force Review Boards Agency
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...
The applicant filed a similar appeal under AFI 36-2401, Correcting Officer and Enlisted Evaluation Reports, which the Evaluation Reports Appeal Board (ERAB) denied. Without clear-cut explanation or evidence, we do not believe the contested report is not accurate as written, and do not support his request to correct EPR. A complete copy of their evaluation is attached at Exhibit D. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE...
The applicant’s board score for the 99E8 board was 397.50. The applicant did provide a letter of recommendation from the commander supporting the upgrading of the EPR ratings and changes to his original comments. It is unreasonable to conclude the commander now, over 10 years later, has a better understanding of the applicant’s duty performance for that time period.
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...
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...
___________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Enlisted Promotion and Military Testing Branch, AFPC/DPPPWB, states that if the Board removes the referral EPR as requested, the applicant will be entitled to supplemental promotion consideration for the 00E7 cycle provided he is otherwise qualified and recommended by his commander. Because the applicant’s last EPR was referral closing 1 June 1999 (he did not receive his next EPR until 5 June...
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. ...
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...
In support of her appeal, the applicant provided the contested EPR, statements by the rater (dated 8 February 2000 & 27 July 2000), the indorser (dated 21 December 1999), and the commander (dated 15 December 1999 & 7 April 2000) of the contested report, the reaccomplished report, and a letter from the Superintendent, 436th Aerospace Medicine Squadron, dated 12 July 2000. MEMORANDUM FOR EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS (AFBCMR) FROM: SAF/MIB SUBJECT:...
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.