RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBERS: 01-02507
INDEX CODE 111.02 111.03 111.05
COUNSEL: None
HEARING DESIRED: Not Indicated
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
The Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) closing 12 May 99 be declared
void and removed from his records
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
His evaluators were biased against him during the reporting period
because of accusations of violating a lawful general regulation, for
which a special court-martial found him not guilty. The initial
feedback date on the EPR in question is falsified; the comments in
Sections V and VI are inconsistent with markings in Section III. He
filed a complaint with the Inspector General (IG), who would not get
involved due to the fact he was under a judicial investigation. The
evaluators refused to respond when he asked for statements.
The applicant provides a copy of his appeal package submitted to the
Evaluation Reports Appeal Board (ERAB). His complete submission is at
Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The applicant is currently serving on active duty in the grade of
technical sergeant (date of rank: 1 Feb 99). He filed a similar appeal
under the provisions of AFR 31-11/AFI 36-2401, which was considered
and denied by the ERAB on 5 Sep 00.
The overall ratings of his EPRs from 12 Dec 93 to 21 Feb 01 are: 4, 5,
5, 4, 5, 5, 5, 4 (contested EPR), 5 and 5.
The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are
contained in the official documents provided in the applicant’s
submission (Exhibit A) and in the letters prepared by the appropriate
offices of the Air Force (Exhibits B and C).
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
HQ AFPC/DPPPWB notes that should the Board void the report, the
applicant would be entitled to supplemental promotion consideration to
master sergeant for the 01E7 cycle, providing he is otherwise
eligible. However, he would not be selected as his total score would
increase to 315.40 and the score required for selection in his Air
Force Specialty Code is 317.41.
A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit B.
HQ AFPC/DPPPEP indicates that, due to the investigation and subsequent
loss of his line badge, the applicant was unable to perform his normal
duties. Therefore, he was appropriately detailed around the base where
he could be utilized as a viable Air Force asset. This does not prove
the evaluators were biased. Many individuals have to perform duties
without the benefit of direct daily supervision. There is nothing to
indicate the rater did not obtain meaningful information on the
applicant’s duty performance from as many reliable sources as
possible. Additionally, the applicant did not prove only one feedback
session occurred. He has not provided convincing evidence that the
evaluators were biased and unable to render an accurate assessment or
that the report itself is erroneous. Denial is recommended.
A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit C.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
The applicant asserts he posed no security threat and asks why would
he be assigned to another fighter squadron after the acquittal by
court-martial, performing the same job with no line badge for the next
six months. He was subjected to public and professional humiliation,
being on display in front of his colleagues and subordinates. His
rater failed to obtain meaningful information on his duty performance.
His supervisor was on temporary duty (TDY) during the month of Nov 98,
on leave during the month of Dec 98, and TDY from Feb 99 through Jun
99. The majority of evaluators will not put their career on the line
stating they violated an Air Force Instruction. People and the system
are not perfect, and common sense and the ability to read between the
lines are needed.
A complete copy of applicant’s response is at 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. Sufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate
the existence of probable error or injustice. After reviewing the
applicant’s submittal and performance record, we are persuaded that
the evaluators may have been adversely influenced by allegations
made against him during the period in question, and for which he was
subsequently found not guilty. While no rating chain statements were
provided, we note the inconsistencies between the comments in
Sections V and VI and the rankings in Section III. While we cannot
determine absolutely that this stemmed from biased, inaccurate
assessments, we believe any possibility of doubt should be resolved
in this applicant’s favor. We therefore recommend that the contested
EPR be declared void and removed from his records. The EPR was
first considered in promotion cycle 01E7. However, since its removal
would not raise the applicant’s total score for this cycle
sufficient for selection to master sergeant, we do not recommend he
be afforded supplemental promotion consideration.
___________________________________________________________________
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT:
The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force
relating to the APPLICANT, be corrected to show that the Enlisted
Performance Report, AF Form 910, rendered for the period 13 May 98
through 12 May 99 be declared void and removed from his records.
___________________________________________________________________
The following members of the Board considered this application in
Executive Session on 15 November 2001 under the provisions of AFI 36-
2603:
Mr. Henry Romo Jr., Panel Chair
Mr. Clyde L. Williams, Member
Ms. Ann-Cecile McDermott, Member
All members voted to correct the records, as recommended. The
following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 7 Aug 01, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPPWB, dated 10 Sep 01.
Exhibit C. Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPPEP, dated 20 Sep 01.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 5 Oct 01.
Exhibit E. Letter, Applicant, dated 12 Oct 01.
HENRY ROMO JR.
Panel Chair
AFBCMR 01-02507
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 13
May 1998 through 12 May 1999 be, and hereby is, declared void and
removed from his records.
JOE G. LINEBERGER
Director
Air Force Review Boards Agency
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.
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...
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...
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...
They indicated that the first time the report was considered in the promotion process was cycle 02E7 to master sergeant (promotions effective August 2002 - July 2003). The evaluation is at Exhibit D. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant reviewed the evaluations and provided a response, which is at Exhibit F. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT: 1. We...
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....
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,...
_________________________________________________________________ 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. The following is a...
_________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: HQ AFPC/DPPPWB addressed the supplemental promotion consideration issue should the applicant’s request be approved. DPPPWB stated that the first time the contested report was considered in the promotion process was Cycle 97E5 to staff sergeant (E-5), promotions effective Sep 97 - Aug 98. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Having...
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...