RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 02-00094
INDEX CODE: 111.02, 131.00
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) rendered for the period 15 Nov 96
through 14 November 1997, be replaced with a corrected EPR.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
He provided information to his supervisor for inclusion in the report but
he omitted the information because he assumed it had been included in a
previous report.
In support of his request applicant provided documents associated with his
Evaluation Reports Appeal Board (ERAB) appeals, a copy of the contested
EPR, a copy of the corrected EPR, copy of a base newspaper article, and a
listing of his accomplishments. His complete submission, with attachments,
is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The applicant contracted his initial enlistment in the Regular Air Force on
28 Jul 82. He has been progressively promoted to the grade of senior
master sergeant, having assumed that grade effective and with a date of
rank of 1 Feb 01.
The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application, extracted from
the applicant’s military records, are contained in the letterS prepared by
the appropriate offices of the Air Force at Exhibits C and D.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
AFPC/DPPPWB reviewed applicant’s request and states that should the AFBCMR
grant his request, providing he is otherwise eligible, he will be entitled
to supplemental promotion consideration to the grade of senior master
sergeant, beginning with cycle 99E8.
The DPPPWB evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit C.
AFPC/DPPPE reviewed the applicant’s request and recommends denial. DPPPE
states that he previously submitted a similar appeal to the ERAB which was
denied because a report is not considered erroneous or unjust because the
applicant and his evaluators believe it may have contributed to his
nonselection for promotion. He contends that his rater, by his own
admission, omitted significant information that may have had a significant
impact on his promotion consideration. Most reports can be changed to be
harder hitting, include stratification, and provide embellishments.
However, the time to do that is before the report becomes a matter of
record. It would be inappropriate to substitute a report based on
retrospective views. It is not possible to include every accomplishment on
the EPR. The applicant ensured the rater was aware of his accomplishments
and the rater included as much of this information as the form allowed.
The applicant did not provide any evidence to support that the report was
erroneous or unjust. The DPPPE evaluation is at Exhibit D.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on 8
Feb 02 for review and response within 30 days. As of this date, this
office has received no response.
_________________________________________________________________
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 all the evidence
provided, we are not persuaded that the contested report is erroneous or
unjust. In the rating process, each evaluator is required to assess a
ratee's performance, honestly and to the best of their ability. The
applicant asserts that his supervisor omitted an accomplishment from his
EPR that he believes is significant and should have been included.
Although we find the accomplishment commendable, we see no evidence which
would lead us to believe that the applicant has been the victim of an error
or injustice in this matter. His supervisor was made aware of his
accomplishments during the period, to include the accomplishment in
question, and we are not convinced that every reasonable effort was not
made to ensure the report he prepared was an accurate depiction of his
performance and demonstrated potential. Therefore, we agree with the Air
Force office of primary responsibility and adopt their rationale as the
basis for our conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of an
error or injustice. In the absence of persuasive evidence to the contrary,
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 Docket Number 02-00094 in
Executive Session on 27 Mar 02, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:
Mr. Terry A. Yonkers, Panel Chair
Mr. James W. Russell III, Member
Ms. Barbara J. White-Olson, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 28 Dec 01, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPPPWB, dated 18 Jan 02.
Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/DPPPE, dated 29 Jan 02.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 8 Feb 02.
TERRY A. YONKERS
Panel Chair
The Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) rendered for the period 11 May 1998 through 2 February 1999 be upgraded from a rating of “4” to a rating of “5” and the closeout date of the report changed to 11 November 1998. The start date for the Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) rendered for the period 3 February 1999 through 24 December 1999, be changed to 12 November 1998. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Chief, Inquiries/AFBCMR Section,...
Although the applicant did not submit a request to remove the EPR until after the convening of the 00E9 Evaluation Board, DPPPWB believes the circumstances of his case would warrant supplemental promotion consideration if the Board approves his request. A complete copy of their evaluation is attached at Exhibit D. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR STAFF EVALUATION: Complete copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-00823
Should the Board void the report as requested, providing he is otherwise eligible, the applicant’s promotion to E-7 could be reinstated, with an effective date and date of rank of 1 Apr 03. The HQ AFPC/DPPPWB evaluation is at Exhibit D. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS: Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to applicant on 2 May 03 for review and response. We have noted the documents provided with the...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-01301
In addition, the dates indicated on the EPR as the dates of initial or mid-term feedback were falsified, as feedback was never performed. The DPPPE evaluation is at Exhibit C. AFPC/DPPPWB states should the EPR be removed, the applicant will receive supplemental promotion consideration for promotion cycle 04E6. The DPPPWB evaluation is at Exhibit D. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Copies of the Air Force...
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.
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-2003-02200
The applicant’s request under AFI 36-2401 to have the contested EPR removed from his records was denied by the ERAB. _________________________________________________________________ The following members of the Board considered Docket Number BC-2003-02200 in Executive Session on 8 October 2003, under the provisions of AFI 36- 2603: Mr. Thomas S. Markiewicz, Chair Ms. Martha Maust, Member Mr. Michael V. Barbino, Member By majority vote, the Board voted to deny the application. Exhibit B.
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...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-00772
In support of his request, the applicant submits a copy of the Evaluation Reports Appeal Board (ERAB) denial letter dated 10 January 2003, a copy of the contested EPR, a copy of the referral EPR notification, a copy of supporting statements from his raters and additional rater, a copy of his TDY voucher, and his letter concerning his former commander. The applicant submitted an appeal to the Evaluation Reports Appeal Board (ERAB) in December 2002 requesting his EPR for the period 12 May...
AF | BCMR | CY2002 | BC-2002-02982
On 1 December 1997, the applicant submitted an appeal to the Evaluation Reports Appeal Board (ERAB) requesting her EPR for the period 11 January 1999 through 15 September 1999 be upgraded from an overall “4” to an overall “5.” On 21 September 2000, the ERAB notified the applicant’s military personnel office that her appeal was considered and denied. The AFPC/DPPPWB evaluation is at Exhibit D. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE...