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 pay.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
The rater of the contested report was influenced by senior members
in the chain of command. Many accomplishments during the rating
period were not included in the EPR.
Applicant’s complete submission is attached at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The applicant’s Total Active Federal Military Service Date is
23 Feb 87. 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 Oct 01.
Applicant’s EPR profile since 1995 reflects the following:
PERIOD ENDING OVERALL EVALUATION
2 Aug 95 5
2 Aug 96 5
2 Aug 97 5
2 Mar 98 4
2 Mar 99 3
* 14 Oct 99 3
12 Sep 00 5
18 Jun 01 4
* Contested report.
The applicant filed a similar appeal under the provisions of AFI 36-
2401, Correcting Officer and Enlisted Evaluation Reports. The
Evaluation Reports Appeal Board (ERAB) denied his request to void
the report because he did not supply the appropriate documentation
to prove his contentions.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
AFPC/DPPPWB reviewed this application and indicated that the
applicant was selected for promotion to technical sergeant during
cycle 99E6 per Promotion Sequence Number (PSN) 8941.0 which would
have been incremented on 1 May 00. When he received the referral
EPR, it automatically canceled his promotion for cycle 99E6 and
also rendered him ineligible for the 00E6 cycle in accordance with
AFI 36-2502, Airman Promotion Program, Table 1.1, Line 22, dated
1 Jul 99. Individuals regain their promotion eligibility only
after receiving an EPR with a rating of “3” or higher that closes
out on or before the Promotion Eligibility Cutoff Date (PECD) for
the next cycle. The PECD for the next cycle, 00E6, was 31 Dec 99.
Because the applicant’s last EPR was a referral closing 14 Oct 99
(he did not receive his next EPR until 13 Sep 00), he was
ineligible for promotion consideration for the 00E6 cycle.
However, should the Board grant the applicant’s request and remove
the referral report or void that portion of the report that makes
it a referral, it could direct the promotion to technical sergeant
be reinstated with a DOR and effective date of 1 May 00, providing
there were no other ineligibility reasons. (As a matter of
information, the applicant was selected for promotion to technical
sergeant during the 01E6 cycle and assumed the grade on 1 Oct 01).
A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation, with attachment, is
attached at Exhibit C.
AFPC/DPPPEP also reviewed this application and recommended denial.
They state that the rater of the report in question did not support
the applicant’s contention of bias or that senior members in the
chain of command influenced his assessment of the applicant’s duty
performance. DPPPEP states that an evaluation report is considered
to represent the rating chain’s best judgment at the time it is
rendered. The applicant has not substantiated the contested report
was not rendered in good faith by all evaluators or provide
effective evidence that the report is an inaccurate documentation
of his duty performance. The willingness of his rater to support
voiding the report is not, by itself, a valid reason to do so.
There was nothing in the letter of support from the rater
indicating applicant’s report was biased or untruthful or the
report was not valid as originally written, only his willingness to
give the applicant a second chance.
A complete copy of their evaluation is attached at Exhibit D.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to applicant on
19 Oct 01 for review and response within 30 days. 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. 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,
including the statement from the rater of the report in question;
however, we are not persuaded that this statement supports voiding
the contested report. We note that the rater recommends the report
in question be removed from the applicant’s records. However, in
our opinion, the rater did not provide persuasive rationale for the
reasons he believes the contested report should be removed. In
fact, the rater states that the applicant’s performance as an
enlisted recruiter was not excellent or outstanding during his
tenure in recruiting service. We also find no evidence of support
from the rater of the applicant’s contention that the report was
biased, untruthful, or influenced by senior members in the chain of
command. In view of the foregoing, we believe that the ratings on
the report were honest assessments of applicant’s performance at
the time the report was rendered and the evidence has not
substantiated that the report is inaccurate or unjust as written.
Therefore, in the absence of more clear-cut evidence that the
applicant has suffered either an error or an injustice, we find no
basis to recommend granting the relief sought. In view of the
above determination, we find no reason to restore applicant’s line
number and subsequent promotion to technical sergeant for the 99E6
promotion cycle. We note that he was selected for promotion to the
grade of technical sergeant during the 01E6 cycle and assumed the
grade on 1 Oct 01.
_________________________________________________________________
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 January 2002, under the provisions of Air
Force Instruction 36-2603:
Mr. Edward H. Parker, Panel Chair
Ms. Martha Maust, Member
Mr. James W. Russell, III, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 22 Aug 01, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPPPWB, dated 10 Sep 01,
w/atch.
Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/DPPPEP, dated 12 Oct 01
Exhibit E. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 19 Oct 01 .
EDWARD H. PARKER
Panel Chair
If the referral EPR closing 11 Dec 96 is removed as requested, the applicant would normally be entitled to supplemental promotion consideration to technical sergeant beginning with the 97E6 cycle provided she is recommended by her commander and is otherwise qualified. However, as a result of her circumstances, the applicant has not received an EPR subsequent to the referral EPR (reason for ineligibility), has not taken the required promotion tests, and has not been considered or recommended...
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.
_________________________________________________________________ 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,...
_________________________________________________________________ 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...
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 | CY2002 | BC-2002-01006
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 02-01006 INDEX NUMBER: 111.02 XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX COUNSEL: None XXX-XX-XXXX HEARING DESIRED: No ___________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: All Enlisted Evaluation Reports (EPRs) rendered on him beginning with the report closing 24 Feb 94 and ending with the report closing 24 Jan 00 be voided and removed from his records. While...
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. ...
DPPPEP stated that, during the contested reporting period, the applicant received a Letter of Counseling (LOC), dated 30 Dec 99, and a Letter of Reprimand (LOR), dated 22 Jun 00, for “isolated incidents.” DPPPEP referenced the decision of the Evaluation Reports Appeal Board (ERAB), which states that “Evaluators are obligated to consider incidences, their frequency, and periods of substandard performance.” DPPPEP stated that the additional rater’s comments in Section VI of the...
Promotion eligibility is regained only after receiving an EPR with an overall rating of “3” or higher that is not a referral report, and closes out on or before the Promotion Eligibility Cutoff Date (PECD) for the next cycle. A complete copy of the evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit E. The Chief, Performance Evaluations Section, HQ AFPC/DPPPEP, also reviewed the appeal and notes the Medical Consultant’s review of the applicant’s medical condition. A complete copy of the evaluation...
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...