Search Decisions

Decision Text

AF | BCMR | CY2002 | 0001523
Original file (0001523.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

                                 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

Similar Decisions

  • AF | BCMR | CY2001 | 0102332

    Original file (0102332.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    _________________________________________________________________ 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...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2002 | 0100019

    Original file (0100019.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    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. ...

  • AF | BCMR | CY1999 | 9801713

    Original file (9801713.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    _________________________________________________________________ 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...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2001 | 0100153

    Original file (0100153.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    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...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2001 | 0003241

    Original file (0003241.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    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...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2002 | 0102349

    Original file (0102349.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    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.

  • AF | BCMR | CY2001 | 0100192

    Original file (0100192.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    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...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2002 | 0000234

    Original file (0000234.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    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

    Original file (BC-2007-00452.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    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...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2001 | 0102551

    Original file (0102551.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    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.