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.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
The record was based on retribution as well as a personality
conflict with the rater during the rating period.
Applicant’s complete submission is attached at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The applicant’s Total Active Federal Military Service Date
(TAFMSD) is 10 Aug 81. She 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 99.
Applicant’s EPR profile since 1989 reflects the following:
PERIOD ENDING OVERALL EVALUATION
2 Dec 89 4
2 Dec 90 4
2 Dec 91 5
2 Nov 92 4
4 Aug 93 5
4 Aug 94 5
1 Jun 95 5
9 Feb 96 4
9 Feb 97 5
19 Jan 98 5
24 Mar 99 5
* 24 Mar 00 3
24 Mar 01 5
* 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) was not convinced by the
applicant’s documentation and denied her request to void the
contested report indicating that substantiated findings from a
formal investigation, memorandums from others in the rating chain
substantiating a personality conflict or the existence of bias
were necessary to support her contentions but were not included
with her appeal.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
The Chief, Inquiries/AFBCMR Section, AFPC/DPPPWB, indicated that
the first time the report was considered in the promotion process
was cycle 01E7 to master sergeant (promotions effective Aug 01 -
Jul 02). Should the Board void the report as requested, she would
be entitled to supplemental promotion consideration for cycle
01E7. She would become a select for this cycle pending a
favorable data verification and the recommendation of the
commander.
A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at
Exhibit C.
The Chief, Performance Evaluation Section, AFPC/DPPPEP, indicated
that based on the lack of evidence, they do not support the
applicant’s request. Air Force policy is that an evaluation
report is accurate as written when it becomes a matter of record.
To prove personality conflict/bias, it is necessary to receive
firsthand evidence that clearly shows how the conflict prevented
the evaluator from preparing a fair and accurate report. If other
evaluators support an appeal because they were unaware of a
conflict at the time, they should provide specific information
(and cite their sources) which leads them to believe the report is
not an objective assessment.
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
31 Aug 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. After
reviewing the evidence of record, we are not persuaded that the
applicant was rated unfairly or that the report is in error.
Applicant contends that a personality conflict existed with the
rater. However, other than her own assertions, she has not
provided any evidence that would lead us to conclude that the
rater was unable to provide a fair and objective assessment of her
duty performance during the contested rating period or that the
report was based on factors other than her performance. Further,
at the time the report was rendered, we note that the indorser
concurred with the rater’s assessment. The indorser apparently
had no reason to believe the rater’s assessment was biased since
he did not adjust the rating. In view of the foregoing, and in
the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no basis to
recommend granting the relief sought in the application.
_________________________________________________________________
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 30 October 2001, under the provisions of Air
Force Instruction 36-2603:
Mr. David C. Van Gasbeck, Panel Chair
Mr. Philip Sheuerman, Member
Mr. Roscoe Hinton, Jr., Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 26 Jun 01, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPPPWB, dated 1 Aug 01.
Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/DPPPEP, dated 27 Aug 01.
Exhibit E. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 31 Aug 01.
DAVID C. VAN GASBECK
Panel Chair
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.
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.
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...
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 | BC-2002-02383
As a result, the indorser changed the EPR to reflect nonconcurrence and the higher rating of “5.” He also has the commander’s signature concurring with the indorser’s decision to upgrade the report. A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit B. HQ AFPC/DPPPWB also reviewed the appeal and advises that, should the Board upgrade the report as requested, the applicant would be entitled to supplemental promotion consideration beginning with cycle 01E6 and would become a selectee pending...
_________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: The applicant makes no contentions on his application; however, he provided letters of support from the rater and additional rater of the report in question. Should the Board replace the report as requested (with the upgrade of the overall rating of “5”), providing he is otherwise eligible, the applicant will be entitled to supplemental promotion consideration beginning with cycle 01E5. A complete...
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...
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 00-03018 INDEX CODE: 111.02, 134.01 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: An expired Unfavorable Information File (UIF), with a Letter of Reprimand (LOR) be removed from her records; the line in Section V (Rater’s Comments) of her Enlisted Performance Report (EPR), closing 23 Apr 99, which made the...
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....
_________________________________________________________________ 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...