ADDENDUM TO
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 00-01523
INDEX CODE: 111.02
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: YES
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
In the applicant’s request for reconsideration, he requests that his
Enlisted Performance Report (EPR), rendered for the period 6 Apr 96 through
27 Oct 96, be declared void and removed from his records.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The applicant is currently serving on active duty in the grade of staff
sergeant, effective and with a date of rank of 1 Oct 99.
Applicant's EPR profile for the last 8 reporting periods follows:
Period Ending Evaluation
5 Apr 95 5 - Immediate Promotion
5 Apr 96 5
* 27 Oct 96 4 - Ready for Promotion
15 Jan 97 Report Not Available
15 Jan 98 5
15 Jan 99 5
29 Mar 00 5
29 Mar 01 5
* Contested report
A similar appeal was considered and partially granted by the Board on 5 Sep
00. For an accounting of the facts and circumstances surrounding the
rationale of the earlier decision by the Board, see the Record of
Proceedings at Exhibit F.
On 27 Mar 01, the applicant submitted an application for correction of
military records, contending that, due to the number of errors,
administrative and factual, the contested EPR’s veracity is in question;
therefore, the report should be removed from his records. To support this
assertion, the applicant provided a personal statement and additional
documents associated with the issues cited in his contentions. The
applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit G.
Inasmuch as the current application contains the same request which was
previously considered by the Board, it is being processed as a request for
reconsideration of the initial application.
On 4 Jun 01, the applicant was notified that, in accordance with his 25 May
01 request to temporarily withdraw his appeal, the processing of his case
was terminated until he was prepared to proceed. On 10 Oct 01, the
applicant requested that the Board proceed with his case.
_________________________________________________________________
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. Should
the Board void the report in its entirety, providing he is otherwise
eligible, the applicant will be entitled to supplemental promotion
consideration commencing with Cycle 97E5. It is noted that the applicant
will not become a selectee for promotion during this cycle if the Board
grants his request. However, he will become a selectee during the 98E5
promotion cycle pending a favorable data verification check and the
recommendation of his commander. The HQ AFPC/DPPPWB evaluation is at
Exhibit H.
HQ AFPC/DPPPEP recommends the application be denied. DPPPEP stated that
the applicant did not provide statements from the evaluators who actually
signed the EPR substantiating his allegation. While the applicant may
believe that someone changed the supervision dates in PC III to prevent a
“late” EPR, he did not provide any evidence. With respect to the feedback
session in question, even if the applicant provides documentation proving
the feedback session did not occur, it would not be appropriate to void the
EPR in its entirety - removing the feedback date would be recommended. As
to obtaining information from former raters, it is the rater’s ultimate
responsibility to determine which accomplishments are included on the EPR,
and whether or not it is necessary to gather additional information from
other sources in order to render an accurate assessment of the individual.
DPPPEP indicated that the applicant did not prove the number of days of
supervision on the contested EPR were insufficient for the rater to render
an EPR. The HQ AFPC/DPPPEP evaluation is at Exhibit I.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
Having been provided the advisory opinions, the applicant submitted a
personal statement for the Board’s review in which he reiterated HQ AFPC’s
direction that the dates of the contested EPR be changed, with the closeout
date of 27 Oct 96 (his PCA date to the Numbered Supply Squadron from the
71st Fighter Squadron). In view of the Board’s previous ruling, which
removed a statement from the contested EPR, it brings in question the
entire report. His former supervisor, SSgt Raymond S---, has provided a
statement attesting to the fact that he was his supervisor from 6 Apr
through the end of Jul 96. Since SSgt S--- was his rater through the end
of Jul, SSgt J--- did not supervise him the required 120 days. SSgt J---
had less than 90 days of supervision vice 204 days of supervision indicated
on the contested report. A report should not have been written until
either his annual closeout or when his next supervisor (SSgt Norman A---)
PCA’d in Mar 97. The contested report states that the initial feedback
session was conducted on 6 May 96; however, he did not work for the rater
until Jul 96.
The indorser (SMSgt L--- (Retired) of the contested report agrees that he
erred at the time and would like the opportunity to change his rating. He
(applicant) understands that failing to conduct performance feedback is not
a reason, alone, to remove EPRs or to consider them in error; however, when
there are obvious signs that the process in the Numbered Fighter Squadron
was “pencil-whipped” as evidenced by the numerous administrative changes to
the 30 Oct PFW, the PFW tracking sheet and the glaring error in fact of the
initial feedback date, the remedy should be to remove the report from the
record.
In support of his request, the applicant submits a personal statement, an
authorized letter and a certified true copy of a former co-worker’s EPR,
and additional documents associated with the issues cited in his
contentions. The applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit K.
_________________________________________________________________
THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:
Sufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the
existence of probable error or injustice. After a review of the
applicant’s most recent submission, we are persuaded by the evidence
presented that the contested report was rendered with insufficient days of
supervision by the rater. In this respect, we note that the applicant’s
former rater provided a letter stating that the applicant was under his
supervision the first 90 days of the contested report. Inasmuch as the
rater of the contested report did not have the requisite 120 days of
supervision, this fact, in, and of itself, would render the contested
report invalid. We therefore conclude that the contested report should be
declared void and removed from his records. In addition, we recommend his
corrected record be provided supplemental promotion consideration to the
grade of staff sergeant commencing with cycle 97E5.
_________________________________________________________________
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT:
The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating
to APPLICANT be corrected to show that the Enlisted Performance Report, AF
Form 910, rendered for the period 6 April 1996 through 27 October 1996, be
declared void and removed from his records.
It is further recommended that he be provided supplemental consideration
for promotion to the grade of staff sergeant for all appropriate cycles
beginning with Cycle 97E5.
If selected for promotion to the grade of staff sergeant by supplemental
consideration, he be provided any additional supplemental consideration
required as a result of that selection, if applicable.
If AFPC discovers any adverse factors during or subsequent to supplemental
consideration that are separate and apart, and unrelated to the issues
involved in this application, that would have rendered the applicant
ineligible for the promotion, such information will be documented and
presented to the Board for a final determination on the individual's
qualifications for the promotion.
If supplemental promotion consideration results in the selection for
promotion to the higher grade, immediately after such promotion the records
shall be corrected to show that he was promoted to the higher grade on the
date of rank established by the supplemental promotion and that he is
entitled to all pay, allowances, and benefits of such grade as of that
date.
_________________________________________________________________
The following members of the Board considered this application in Executive
Session on 3 April 2002, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:
Mr. Charles E. Bennett, Panel Chair
Mr. Joseph A. Roj, Member
Mr. Thomas J. Topolski Jr., Member
All members voted to correct the records, as recommended. The following
documentary evidence was considered in connection with AFBCMR Docket Number
00-01523:
Exhibit F. Record of Proceedings, dated 26 Sep 00,
with exhibits.
Exhibit G. DD Form 149, dated 27 Mar 01, with attachments.
Exhibit H. Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPPWB, dated 19 Apr 01.
Exhibit I. Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPPEP, dated 7 May 01.
Exhibit J. Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 18 May 01.
Exhibit K. Applicant’s Letter, dated 10 Oct 01, with
attachments.
CHARLES E. BENNETT
Panel Chair
AFBCMR 00-01523
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 Enlisted Performance
Report, AF Form 910, rendered for the period 6 April 1996 through 27
October 1996, be, and hereby is, declared void and removed from his
records.
It is further directed that he be provided supplemental consideration
for promotion to the grade of staff sergeant for all appropriate cycles
beginning with Cycle 97E5.
If selected for promotion to the grade of staff sergeant by
supplemental consideration, he be provided any additional supplemental
consideration required as a result of that selection, if applicable.
If AFPC discovers any adverse factors during or subsequent to
supplemental consideration that are separate and apart, and unrelated to
the issues involved in this application, that would have rendered the
applicant ineligible for the promotion, such information will be documented
and presented to the Board for a final determination on the individual's
qualifications for the promotion.
If supplemental promotion consideration results in the selection for
promotion to the higher grade, immediately after such promotion the records
shall be corrected to show that he was promoted to the higher grade on the
date of rank established by the supplemental promotion and that he is
entitled to all pay, allowances, and benefits of such grade as of that
date.
JOE G. LINEBERGER
Director
Air Force Review Boards Agency
_________________________________________________________________ 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...
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. ...
_________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Chief, Inquiries/AFBCMR Section, Enlisted Promotion & Military Testing Branch, HQ AFPC/DPPPWB, states that the first time the contested report was considered in the promotion process was cycle 96E5 to staff sergeant. The applicant provided a statement from his rater, but failed to provide any information/support from the other members of his rating chain on the contested EPR. A complete copy of the...
A similar appeal was filed under AFI 36-2401, Correcting Officer and Enlisted Evaluation Reports, which was denied by the Evaluation Reports Appeal Board (ERAB) on 2 Apr 98. The EPR was designed to provide a rating for a specific period of time based on the performance noted during that period, not based on previous performance. A complete copy of their evaluation, with attachment, is attached at Exhibit D. __________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S...
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...
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.
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...
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 | CY2007 | BC-2007-00452
In support of his request, the applicant submits copies of his EPRs; performance feedback evaluations; awards and decorations; letters of support; leave and earnings statements; temporary duty (TDY) documentation; excerpts of Air Force Instruction (AFI) 36-2406; Application for Correction/Removal of Evaluation Reports and correspondence concerning supplemental board consideration. DPPPEP states a report is not erroneous or unfair because the applicant believes it contributed to a...
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.