RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 01-02349
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
The Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) rendered for the period 27 July 1998
through 17 June 1999, be removed from his records.
_________________________________________________________________
THE APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
The contested report is an inaccurate assessment of his duty performance,
totally unfair, and was prejudiced based on personal biases.
The contested report does not reflect a lack of job performance and the
rating is not consistent with the wording in Section V, Rater’s Comments.
During a three-year period of supervision, he never received performance
feedback. Furthermore, the rater’s rater endorsed the report before his
rebuttal.
In support of the appeal, applicant submits a copy of the contested report;
statements from a major general, his former supervisor, and co-workers; a
copy of his Stripes to Exceptional Performers (STEP) package; character
references; and emails.
The applicant’s former supervisor states that the applicant had no Air
Force officials in his immediate chain of command and the report does not
indicate poor duty performance, nor any other difficulties other than
frequent telephone usage.
Applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The applicant is currently serving on active duty in the grade of technical
sergeant.
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).
Applicant’s performance profile follows:
PERIOD ENDING OVERALL RATING
31 Mar 92 5
9 Mar 94 5
9 Mar 95 5
9 Mar 96 5
26 Jul 96 5
26 Jul 97 5
26 Jul 98 5
* 17 Jun 99 (Referral) 3 (indorser upgrd)
17 Jun 00 5
17 Jun 01 5
* Contested EPR
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS:
AFPC/DPPPWB states, in part, that the first promotion cycle the contested
report would normally have been considered in the promotion process was the
00E7 cycle. As such, if the Board removes the contested report, the
applicant will be entitled to supplemental promotion consideration for the
00E7 cycle provided he is otherwise qualified and recommended by his
commander.
The AFPC/DPPPWB evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit C.
AFPC/DPPPEP recommends the application be denied. AFPC/DPPPEP states, in
part, that the applicant has not substantiated the contested report was not
rendered in good faith by all evaluators or provide effective evidence this
report is an inaccurate documentation of his duty performance. While the
rater provided two emails indicating his willingness to sign a new rating,
there is no evidence the contested report is an inaccurate assessment of
the applicant’s duty performance.
The AFPC/DPPPEP evaluation is at Exhibit D.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS:
Complete copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the
applicant on 5 October 2001 for review and response within 30 days.
However, 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 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. After reviewing the statements provided by
the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Reserve Affairs (Readiness,
Training and Mobilization) and the applicant’s former supervisor, we do not
believe they substantiate that the contested report is an inaccurate
assessment of the applicant’s duty performance. Applicant’s contentions
are duly noted; however, we do not find these assertions, in and by
themselves, sufficiently persuasive to override the rationale provided by
the offices of the Air Force. The offices of primary responsibility have
adequately addressed applicant’s contentions and we agree with their
opinions and recommendations. We, therefore, adopt the rationale expressed
as the basis for our decision that the applicant has failed to sustain his
burden that he has suffered either an error or an injustice. Hence, we
find no compelling 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 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 Docket Number 01-02349 in
Executive Session on 19 February 2002, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:
Mr. David C. Van Gasbeck, Panel Chair
Ms. Patricia D. Vestal, Member
Mr. Joseph A. Roj, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 9 Aug 01, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPPPWB, dated 10 Sep 01, w/atchs.
Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/DPPPEP, dated 26 Sep 01.
Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 5 Oct 01.
DAVID C. VAN GASBECK
Panel Chair
_________________________________________________________________ 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: 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,...
___________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Enlisted Promotion and Military Testing Branch, AFPC/DPPPWB, states that if the Board removes the referral EPR as requested, the applicant will be entitled to supplemental promotion consideration for the 00E7 cycle provided he is otherwise qualified and recommended by his commander. Because the applicant’s last EPR was referral closing 1 June 1999 (he did not receive his next EPR until 5 June...
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...
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...
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: 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...
_________________________________________________________________ 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...
When requesting an entire report be voided, the applicant must take into consideration that any complimentary comments on the contested report will also be removed from the records if the request is approved. The report can be corrected administratively by changing the rater’s grade to master sergeant, closing the EPR on 9 October 1997 (the day before the member was demoted and moved to another section), and the “number days” supervision to 192. A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-02787
_________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: The “4” rating does not match the accomplishments for the reporting period; the feedback AF Form 931 marked to the extreme right margin stated he needed little or no improvement; he received no counseling from his supervisor if there was need for improvement from the last feedback prior to EPR closeout; his entire career reflects superior performance in all areas of responsibilities past and present,...