RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 01-01789
INDEX CODE: 111.02
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: YES
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
The Enlisted Performance Reports (EPRs) rendered for the periods
2 Oct 98 through 1 Oct 99 and 2 Oct 99 through 2 Aug 00 be upgraded
or declared void and removed from his records.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
The two EPRs were reprisal for filing both an Inspector General (IG)
complaint and a Social Actions complaint.
Applicant’s complete submission is attached at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The applicant’s Total Active Federal Military Service Date (TAFMSD)
is 9 Apr 84. He 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 Jan 00.
Applicant’s EPR profile since 1992 reflects the following:
PERIOD ENDING OVERALL EVALUATION
14 Nov 92 5
23 Dec 93 5
23 Dec 94 5
23 Dec 95 5
23 Jan 97 5
23 Jan 98 5
1 Oct 98 5
* 1 Oct 99 4
* 2 Aug 00 4
* Contested reports.
Applicant submitted a similar appeal under the provisions of AFI 36-
2401, Correcting Officer and Enlisted Evaluation Reports. The
Evaluation Reports Appeal Board (ERAB) returned the applicant’s
appeal without action and advised the applicant that in order to
prove reprisal, he would need to contact the Inspector General (IG)
and file an official complaint. Once the investigation was complete
(reviewed and validated by appropriate officials), he could then
resubmit his appeal under the provisions of AFI 36-2401.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
The Chief, Inquires/AFBCMR Section, AFPC/DPPPWB, stated that the
first time the contested report closing 1 Oct 99 was considered in
the promotion process was cycle 00E6 to technical sergeant
(promotions effective Aug 00 - Jul 01). However, because the
applicant was selected to the grade of technical sergeant during this
cycle, no supplemental promotion consideration will be required
should the Board grant his request. Based on his DOR for technical
sergeant of 1 Oct 00, the subject reports will not be considered
again in the promotion process until cycle 03E7 to master sergeant.
Promotions for this cycle will be announced during the May/Jun 03
time frame.
A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit C.
The Chief, Performance Evaluation Section, AFPC/DPPPEP, indicated
that neither the IG nor the Social Actions office substantiated the
applicant’s allegations. Air Force policy is that an evaluation
report is accurate as written when it becomes a matter of record.
The applicant did not provide sufficient evidence or evaluator
support to warrant voiding or upgrading the reports. He did not
submit any documentation indicating he has contacted the IG
concerning alleged reprisal. The ERAB recommended the applicant
resubmit his appeal after pursuing the reprisal complaint with the
IG. DPPPEP recommends the Board deny the applicant’s request to void
or upgrade the contested reports.
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 indicated that he
located the personnel he could get in touch with and explained the
situation to them and asked if they could help him. They were
reluctant to be part of the process he is trying to accomplish. Time
went by and he could not get or provide additional information.
Therefore, he contacted the IG again to clarify that he did not have
anything to add. Then he was told there was no need to file the
report if he did not have additional evidence to substantiate the
complaint. Otherwise, he had to go back to Germany and talk to the
people who might remember after those years and who would be willing
to step forward to support his appeal. He contacted two individuals
who would submit or write a letter to support and correct the record.
He received one letter from an individual who works outside of
maintenance and he is waiting for one more from an individual who was
his assistant and the Noncommissioned Officer-in-Charge (NCOIC) of
Radio Maintenance who really knew what happened all those times and
years in their work place. He requests the Board consider this
additional information to support his appeal as evidence. He states
that the only way we can get out the truth is to go to court where
the people have to tell the truth and not have any reprisal.
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. We have
thoroughly reviewed the documentation submitted with this appeal;
however, we are not persuaded that either an error or injustice
exists. The applicant asserts that the two EPRs were reprisal for
filing an Inspector General complaint against his commander and a
Social Actions complaint of discrimination against his supervisor.
However, other than his own assertions, the applicant has provided no
evidence substantiating his allegations of reprisal. Nor did he
provide sufficient evidence that would lead us to conclude that the
evaluators who were tasked with the responsibility of assessing his
duty performance were precluded from rendering unbiased evaluations
of his performance or that the ratings were based on any factors
other than his duty performance during the periods in question. In
view of the foregoing, and in the absence of evidence to the
contrary, 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 issues 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 16 October 2001, under the provisions of Air
Force Instruction 36-2603:
Mr. Richard A. Peterson, Panel Chair
Ms. Olga M. Crerar, Member
Mr. Richard M. McCormick, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 25 Jun 01, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPPPWB, dated 10 Jul 01.
Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/DPPPEP, dated 18 Jul 01.
Exhibit E. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 20 Jul 01.
Exhibit F. Letter fr applicant, dated 27 Aug 01, w/atchs.
RICHARD A. PETERSON
Panel Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-03142
However, on 27 Aug 01, the squadron commander reported to the Wing IG he was considering removing the applicant as NCOIC of the Hydraulics shop because he was inciting his personnel over the manning issue and continuing to complain about it outside the rating chain. The complete evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit D. AFPC/JA recommends the LOR administered to the applicant on 25 Mar 02, the EPR rendered on him closing 19 Jul 02, and the AF Form 418 be voided and removed from his...
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...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-00603
The rater of the contested EPR was a colonel assigned to the HQ USAF/SGT as the IHS Program Manager. A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant advises she filed MEO and IG complaints but her complaints were dismissed. MARTHA J. EVANS Panel Chair AFBCMR BC-2005-00603 MEMORANDUM FOR THE CHIEF OF STAFF Having received and considered the recommendation of the...
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...
_________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Chief, Inquiries/AFBCMR Section, AFPC/DPPPWB, reviewed this application and states the first time the report was considered in the promotion process was for cycle 99E8 to senior master sergeant (promotions effective Apr 99 - Mar 00). A complete copy of their evaluation is attached at Exhibit E. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-02410
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2005-02410 INDEX CODE: 107.00 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 29 Jan 07 _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: He be promoted to the grade of senior master sergeant during promotion cycle 02E8 with a date of rank and effective date of 1 Sep 02. If the Board believes an injustice exists and...
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 01-02492 INDEX CODE: 111.02 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: The Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) rendered for the period 3 Mar 99 through 14 Oct 99 be declared void and removed from his records and restoration of his promotion to technical sergeant from the 99E6 promotion cycle, including back...
He does not believe that the voiding and removal of the 1996 EPR can have any “positive effect.” The DMSM (1OLC) he received was the result of corrective action taken after the DTRA IG recommended he receive an appropriate end of tour award. First, he received the DMSM for his assignment ending in 1996 as corrective action in 1999. The applicant’s DMSM could not be considered by the 97E8 promotion board because it was not in his records.
AF | BCMR | CY2009 | BC-2009-01997
On 20 Jan 04, the applicant initiated an AF Form 102, Inspector General Personal and Fraud, Waste and Abuse Complaint Registration , alleging reprisal and abuse of authority by his chain of command relative to his EPR and his request for extension of his (DEROS). On 20 Dec 05, the applicant was notified by Headquarters, Air Mobility Command Office of the Inspector General (HQ AMC/IG) of its findings regarding his allegations. SAF/IG reviewed the HQ AMC/IG report of investigation and...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2004-02755
A complete copy of the evaluation is attached at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR STAFF EVALUATION: The applicant reviewed the Air Force evaluation and states he did file an IG complaint, which he included with his application. However, based on the applicant’s previous and subsequent performance reports,the performance feedback he received prior to the contested report, and the letter from the rater of the contested...