RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 02-00084
(CASE 3)
INDEX CODES: 111.02, 131.00
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
The Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) rendered for the period 7 Jan
92 through 6 Jan 93 be declared void and removed from her records.
She be provided supplemental promotion consideration beginning with
cycle 94A7.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
She appealed the contested EPR to the Board in Dec 92. This appeal
was denied. She submitted another appeal for removal of an Article 15
in Mar 94. This appeal was approved. In Dec 01, she realized that
she did not request that her first case be reopened after the second
case was approved. Since the circumstances resulting in the EPR are
the same circumstances for which she received the Article 15, she
feels that it is fair to again request removal of the EPR from her
records.
In support of her appeal, the applicant provided copies of the two
cases previously considered by the Board.
Applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
Information extracted from the Personnel Data System (PDS) indicates
that the applicant is currently serving on active duty in the grade of
senior master sergeant, having been promoted to that grade on 1 Dec
99. Her Total Active Federal Military Service Date (TAFMSD) is 13 Jun
79.
Applicant's EPR profile since 1992 follows:
PERIOD ENDING EVALUATION
6 Jan 92 5
* 6 Jan 93 3
31 Oct 93 5
28 Feb 94 5
28 Feb 95 5
28 Feb 96 5
30 Jun 96 5
31 Jan 97 5
31 Jan 98 5
31 May 99 5
31 May 00 5
26 Mar 01 5
31 Jul 01 5
* Contested report.
On 17 Nov 94, the Board considered and denied an application
pertaining to the applicant, requesting that the EPR closing 6 Jan 93
be voided and removed from her records.
On 8 Dec 94 and 6 Sep 95, the Board considered an application
pertaining to the applicant, requesting that the Article 15 imposed on
30 Mar 93 be removed from her records. The Board recommended that the
Article 15 be voided and that she be provided supplemental promotion
consideration with her corrected records. The Deputy for Air Force
Review Boards accepted the recommendation of the Board on 28 Sep 95.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
AFPC/DPPPWB indicated that only performance reports between 1 Jan 88
and 31 Dec 92 were eligible for consideration during the 94A7 cycle.
Consequently, even if the report closing 6 Jan 93 is removed, the
applicant would not be entitled to supplemental consideration for this
cycle. She was selected for promotion to the grade of master sergeant
during the next cycle (95A7), with the report in her records and
assumed the grade on 1 Apr 95. According to AFPC/DPPPWB, it would
serve no useful purpose at this time to provide her consideration for
promotion to the grade of master sergeant for the 95A7 cycle. Should
the Board grant the applicant’s request to void the contested EPR,
providing she is otherwise eligible, she will be entitled to
supplemental promotion consideration beginning with cycle 97E8.
A complete copy of the DPPPWB evaluation, with attachments, is at
Exhibit C.
AFPC/DPPPE recommended denial. According to AFPC/DPPPE, it is Air
Force policy that an evaluation report is accurate as written when it
becomes a matter of record. The Board has previously rendered a
decision on this matter, and in their view, the applicant had not
provided any new evidence that the EPR was erroneous or unjust.
A complete copy of the AFPC/DPPPE evaluation is at Exhibit D.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to applicant on 15
Feb 02 for review and response. As of this date, no response has been
received by this office (Exhibit E).
_________________________________________________________________
THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:
1. The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by existing law
or regulations.
2. The application was not timely filed; however, it is in the
interest of justice to excuse the failure to timely file.
3. Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate
the existence of probable error or injustice. After a thorough review
of the evidence presented, we are not persuaded that the contested EPR
was based on factors other than the applicant’s performance. She
contends that the EPR was based on an Article 15 that has now been set
aside. While the Article 15 was set aside, it appears that it was
done so because of a technicality and not because she had been
exonerated of any wrongdoing. She also asserts that the EPR included
information that was outside the rating period. However, this issue
was previously and, in our view, adequately addressed by the Board
when it initially considered and denied her request to have the EPR
removed. Finally, the applicant claims that the contested report
should have been a referral. However, other than her assertions, no
evidence has been presented which has shown to our satisfaction that
the report should have been referred. In view of the foregoing, and
in the absence of evidence that the EPR closing 6 Jan 93 was an
inaccurate assessment of the applicant’s performance when it was
originally rendered, we find no compelling basis to recommend granting
the relief sought in this 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 AFBCMR Docket Number 02-
00084 in Executive Session on 11 Apr 02, under the provisions of AFI
36-2603:
Ms. Peggy E. Gordon, Panel Chair
Mr. E. David Hoard, Member
Ms. Ann-Cecile McDermott, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 8 Jan 02, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPPPWB, dated 28 Jan 02, w/atch.
Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/DPPPE, dated 5 Feb 02.
Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 15 Feb 02.
PEGGY E. GORDON
Panel Chair
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 | CY2003 | BC-2003-01104
Applicant's EPR profile since 1992 follows: PERIOD ENDING EVALUATION 29 Mar 92 5 29 Mar 93 5 29 Mar 94 5 29 Mar 95 5 29 Mar 95 5 29 Mar 96 5 31 Jan 97 5 31 Jan 98 5 31 Jan 99 5 31 Jan 00 5 31 Jan 01 5 * 31 Mar 02 4 (referral) 1 Jan 03 5 * Contested report. He indicated that at the time his EPR would have closed out, the applicant was under investigation for an alleged assault incident that occurred on 25 Jan 02. The evidence of record indicates that a CDI was conducted into allegations...
Applicant’s complete submission is attached at Exhibit A. On 30 Sep 99, applicant’s supervisor did not recommend her for reenlistment due to the referral EPR. A complete copy of the their evaluation, with attachments, is attached at Exhibit D. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Applicant reviewed the Air Force evaluations and provided a five-page letter responding to the advisory opinions.
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-00432
In support of her appeal, applicant submitted a personal statement, dated 31 Jan 03; a copy of her statement to the ERAB, dated 14 Jan 02; a copy of an MFR from her former element chief, dated 3 Aug 01; a copy of her EPR closing 16 Oct 01 and an AF Form 931, Performance Feedback Worksheet (AB thru TSgt), dated 5 Jul 01. Air Force policy states it is the rating chain’s responsibility to “assess and document what the ratee did, how well he or she did it, and the ratee’s potential based on...
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 02-00120 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: The Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) rendered for the period 5 March 1998 through 4 March 1999, be removed from his records and he be provided supplemental promotion consideration for cycle 99E5. The applicant provided comments to the referral report on...
On 14 Apr 00, the investigating officer documented his findings during the report of survey identifying the applicant as being grossly negligent in his actions. The additional rater stated that the applicant did receive a copy of the EPR and referral memorandum. Therefore, in the absence of evidence that the contested report was an inaccurate depiction of the applicant’s performance at the time it was rendered, we adopt AFPC/DPPPE’s rationale and conclude that no basis exists to...
___________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS: The Inquiries/AFBCMR Section, AFPC/DPPPWB, evaluated this application and provided the following information regarding the impact of the two EPRs on the applicant’s promotion consideration: The first time the two EPRs impacted the applicant’s promotion consideration was cycle 94A6 to TSgt (promotions effective Aug 93–Jul 94). We therefore recommend that the contested reports be corrected as indicated...
I Applicant's complete submission is attached at Exhibit A. includes STATEMENT OF FACTS: Applicant was selected to the grade of master sergeant in cycle 95A7, effective and with a date of rank of 1 September 1994. AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Chief, Inquiries/AFBCMR Section, HQ AFPC/DPPPWB, reviewed this application and states that should the Board void the contested report in its entirety or upgrade the overall rating, providing the applicant is otherwise eligible, he will be entitled to...
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,...
The applicant’s board score for the 99E8 board was 397.50. The applicant did provide a letter of recommendation from the commander supporting the upgrading of the EPR ratings and changes to his original comments. It is unreasonable to conclude the commander now, over 10 years later, has a better understanding of the applicant’s duty performance for that time period.