RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 01-02009
INDEX CODE: 111.00, 111.05
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
The Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) rendered for the period
15 Dec 99 through 14 Dec 00 be declared void and removed from his
records and replaced with a revised EPR covering the same period.
_________________________________________________________________
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.
Applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is attached at
Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The applicant is currently serving in the Regular Air Force (RegAF)
in the grade of senior airman.
Applicant’s EPR profile follows:
PERIOD ENDING OVERALL EVALUATION
1 May 98 5
1 May 99 4
14 Dec 99 4
* 14 Dec 00 4
* Contested report.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
The Chief, Inquiries/AFBCMR Section, AFPC/DPPPWB, reviewed this
application and indicated that the first time the contested report
was considered in the promotion process was cycle 01E5 to staff
sergeant (promotions effective Sep 01 - Aug 02). 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. He will become a select for this cycle if the
Board grants the request 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, also
reviewed this application and indicated that Air Force policy is
that an evaluation report is accurate as written when it becomes a
matter of record and the willingness of evaluators to change a
report after promotion nonselection is not a valid reason for doing
so. DPPPEP recommends the Board deny the applicant’s request to
upgrade the report.
A complete copy of their evaluation is attached at Exhibit D.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
Applicant reviewed the Air Force evaluations and commented on the
advisory opinion from the Chief, Performance Evaluation Section,
that willingness to change an EPR after nonselection for promotion
is not a valid reason. The applicant states that the rating chain
initiated and mailed this request for change well before the
promotion results were announced. Therefore, the request was not
due to him not making staff sergeant.
Applicant’s complete response is attached at Exhibit F.
_________________________________________________________________
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 statements from the rater and additional rater of the
report in question; however, we are not persuaded that these
statements support voiding and replacing the contested report. We
note that these individuals are willing to upgrade the ratings on
the report in question. However, in our opinion, the rater and
additional rater did not provide persuasive rationale for the
reasons they believe the contested report should be replaced. 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. In view of the above, and 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.
_________________________________________________________________
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 2 May 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 16 Aug 01.
Exhibit E. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 24 Aug 01.
Exhibit F. Letter fr applicant, dated 29 Aug 01.
DAVID C. VAN GASBECK
Panel Chair
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.
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,...
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...
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2006-03011
The rater provides a statement recommending the contested EPR be deleted as it was unjust and did not fit the applicant’s true performance. On 8 Nov 05, the applicant filed a second appeal, requesting the 3 Jun 04 report be deleted because of an unjust rating resulting from a “personnel [sic] conflict with the rater.” The ERAB returned the appeal without action, suggesting the applicant provide a reaccomplished EPR. A complete copy of the HQ AFPC/DPPPWB evaluation is at Exhibit...
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...
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.
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 NUMBERS: 01-00271 INDEX CODE 111.02 131.09 COUNSEL: None HEARING DESIRED: No _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: The Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) closing 6 Dec 99 be upgraded from an overall rating of “4” to “5.” _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: His rater mistakenly compared his...
The report was forwarded for senior rater endorsement and signed, dated 14 June 1997. The reaccomplished EPR should be removed from his record and replaced with the initial EPR signed and dated 2 June 1997, which accurately reflected his duty performance during the period in question. EVALUATION: The Chief, Inquiries, AFBCMR Section, Enlisted Promotion & Military Testing Branch, HQ AFPC/DPPPWB, reviewed this application and states that the first time the report was considered in the...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-01995
Instead, para 4.7.5.2 is the appropriate reference that applies to the applicant and it states, “…the LOE becomes a referral document attached to the report.” After reviewing the referral EPR, the rater did not attach the LOE to the applicant’s referral EPR, therefore, as an administrative correction, DPPPEP recommends the LOE be attached to the referral EPR with corrections made to the “From and Thru” dates. DPPPWB states the first time the contested report would normally have...