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 CONTENDS THAT:
The contested report should not have been a referral report since there are
no indicators that make the report a referral.
The applicant states that the referral memorandum indicated that one or
more of the ratings on the report made it a referral; however, there are no
mark downs in the far left block of any performance factors in Section III
and the rater gave him a “4” in Section IV. Furthermore, the Career
Development Course (CDC) waiver was approved within the reporting period,
and there are no comments that indicate a lack of professional conduct or
that minimum standards were not met.
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 staff
sergeant.
On 22 February 1999, the commander requested the applicant be granted a
waiver of the CDC test requirement, indicating that the applicant had
satisfied the intent of the CDC upgrade testing, that he was an outstanding
performer, and that he had some extenuating circumstances leading to his
CDC failures. The waiver was approved on 23 February 1999.
In a letter, dated 4 March 1999, the rater referred the EPR, closing 4
March 1999 to the applicant. The applicant provided comments to the
referral report on 11 March 1999. However, on 15 March 1999, the indorser
concurred with the rater’s comments and ratings.
The applicant’s request under AFI 36-2401 to have the contested EPR removed
from his records was denied by the Evaluation Report Appeals Board (ERAB),
which noted that the applicant provided comments to the referral report
indicating he was aware of the reason the report was being referred to him.
Applicant’s performance profile follows:
PERIOD ENDING OVERALL RATING
9 Feb 94 4
9 Feb 95 5
4 Mar 96 5
4 Mar 97 5
4 Mar 98 5
* 4 Mar 99 Referral 4
4 Mar 00 5
30 Jan 01 5
30 Oct 01 5
* Contested EPR
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS:
AFPC/DPPPWB states, in part, that the first cycle the contested report
would normally have been considered was cycle 99E5; however, since it was a
referral report, the applicant was ineligible for promotion consideration.
The AFPC/DPPPWB evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit C.
AFPC/DPPPE recommends the applicant’s request to void the report be denied;
however, direct the referral memorandum be corrected in paragraph one to
include the omitted words, “or comments.” AFPC/DPPPE states, in part, that
Air Force policy is that an evaluation report is accurate as written when
it becomes a matter of record and the applicant has not provided convincing
evidence that the report is in error or unjust.
The AFPC/DPPPE evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit D.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS:
The applicant states that the derogatory remark made it into the contested
report after the same people that wrote the report waived the CDC
requirement. His response to the CDC failures gave his chain of command
the personal circumstances for his failure. His chain of command felt that
his CDC failure was not typical of his normal work ethic, but rather a case
of unfortunate circumstances, and approved the waiver. Furthermore, he was
entitled to a commander’s counseling session to discuss concerns after the
first CDC failure and was never given that opportunity. In addition, the
report was incorrectly filed since there were no markings to the far left
as indicated in the memorandum referring the report.
The applicant’s complete response is 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. Sufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the
existence of probable error or injustice warranting voidance of the
contested report and supplemental promotion consideration to the grade of
staff sergeant. After reviewing the evidence of record, we are convinced
that the contested report is an inaccurate assessment of the applicant's
performance during the period in question. In this respect, we note that
the applicant’s commander requested the applicant be granted a waiver of
the CDC test requirement, indicating that he had satisfied the intent of
the CDC upgrade testing, that he was an outstanding performer, and that he
had some extenuating circumstances leading to his CDC failures. Although
the waiver was approved during the rating period, the contested report
contained a comment that the applicant twice failed his CDC end-of-course
examination. In addition, the report contained a markdown in Section III,
Evaluation of Performance, with respect to how well the applicant complied
with individual training requirements. In view of the above and in
consideration of the applicant's prior and subsequent outstanding
performance, we recommend that the contested report be declared void and
removed from his records. In addition, it is recommended that he be
provided supplemental promotion consideration to the grade of staff
sergeant by all appropriate cycles.
_________________________________________________________________
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT:
The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating
to APPLICANT, be corrected to show that the AF Form 910, Enlisted
Performance Report, rendered for the period 5 March 1998 through 4 March
1999, be declared void and removed from his records.
It is further recommended that he be provided supplemental consideration
for promotion to the grade of staff sergeant for all appropriate cycles
beginning with cycle 99E5.
If AFPC discovers any adverse factors during or subsequent to supplemental
consideration that are separate and apart, and unrelated to the issues
involved in this application, that would have rendered the applicant
ineligible for the promotion, such information will be documented and
presented to the board for a final determination on the individual's
qualification for the promotion.
If supplemental promotion consideration results in the selection for
promotion to the higher grade, immediately after such promotion the records
shall be corrected to show that he was promoted to the higher grade on the
date of rank established by the supplemental promotion and that he is
entitled to all pay, allowances, and benefits of such grade as of that
date.
_________________________________________________________________
The following members of the Board considered Docket Number 02-00120 in
Executive Session on 14 March 2002, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:
Ms. Peggy E. Gordon, Panel Chair
Mr. John E. Pettit, Member
Mr. Albert J. Starnes, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 7 Jan 02, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPPPWB, dated 23 Jan 02, w/atchs.
Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/DPPPE, dated 31 Jan 02.
Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 8 Feb 02.
Exhibit F. Letter, Applicant, undated.
PEGGY E. GORDON
Panel Chair
AFBCMR 02-00120
MEMORANDUM FOR THE CHIEF OF STAFF
Having received and considered the recommendation of the Air Force
Board for Correction of Military Records and under the authority of Section
1552, Title 10, United States Code (70A Stat 116), it is directed that:
The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force
relating APPLICANT, be corrected to show that the AF Form 910, Enlisted
Performance Report, rendered for the period 5 March 1998 through 4 March
1999, be, and hereby is, declared void and removed from his records.
It is further directed that he be provided supplemental consideration
for promotion to the grade of staff sergeant for all appropriate cycles
beginning with cycle 99E5.
If AFPC discovers any adverse factors during or subsequent to
supplemental consideration that are separate and apart, and unrelated to
the issues involved in this application, that would have rendered the
applicant ineligible for the promotion, such information will be documented
and presented to the board for a final determination on the individual's
qualification for the promotion.
If supplemental promotion consideration results in the selection for
promotion to the higher grade, immediately after such promotion the records
shall be corrected to show that he was promoted to the higher grade on the
date of rank established by the supplemental promotion and that he is
entitled to all pay, allowances, and benefits of such grade as of that
date.
JOE G. LINEBERGER
Director
Air Force Review Boards Agency
EPR profile since 1997 reflects the following: PERIOD ENDING EVALUATION OF POTENTIAL 22 Apr 97 4 * 30 Jan 98 1 30 May 98 4 30 Sep 98 5 10 Jul 99 5 14 May 00 5 * Contested report _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Chief, Inquiries/AFBCMR Section, Enlisted Promotion and Military Testing Branch, AFPC/DPPPWB, reviewed this application and states that based on the applicant’s date of rank for senior airman, the first time the report was...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-00839
The applicant appealed the contested report under the provisions of AFI 36-2401, Correcting Officer and Enlisted Evaluations Reports. The first time he was considered was in cycle 01E5. He was considered again for promotion in cycle 02E5.
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...
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...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-00117
The EPR was rated an overall “4” which indicates, “ready for promotion,” and sections 5 and 6 of the EPR provide promotion comments. Air Force policy is that an evaluation report is accurate as written when it becomes a matter of record. The evaluation is at Exhibit D. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: On 4 April 2003, copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant for review and response...
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.
In support of her appeal, the applicant provided the contested EPR, statements by the rater (dated 8 February 2000 & 27 July 2000), the indorser (dated 21 December 1999), and the commander (dated 15 December 1999 & 7 April 2000) of the contested report, the reaccomplished report, and a letter from the Superintendent, 436th Aerospace Medicine Squadron, dated 12 July 2000. MEMORANDUM FOR EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS (AFBCMR) FROM: SAF/MIB SUBJECT:...
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...
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...
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. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT...