RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 02-00559, Cse 2
INDEX CODE: 111.01
APPLICANT COUNSEL: None
SSN HEARING DESIRED: None
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
The Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) rendered for the period 25 Mar
99 thru 24 Mar 00 be removed from his records.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
He believes his record is unjust due to the fact that his feedback
dated 28 Oct 99 went as far as to state "I expect to call you "Chief"
in December." He was never told he was not completing his job and not
giving one hundred percent. He should have received Senior Rater
endorsement based on the feedback he was given.
Applicant's complete submission, with attachments, is attached at
Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The applicant is currently serving in the Regular Air Force in the
grade of senior master sergeant.
The applicant appealed the contested report under the provisions of
AFI 36-2401, Correcting Officer and Enlisted Evaluations Reports. The
Evaluation Reports Appeal Board (ERAB) was not convinced by the
documentation submitted by the applicant and denied his request.
EPR profile as a senior master sergeant reflects the following:
PERIOD ENDING OVERALL EVALUATION
8 Jun 98 5
24 Mar 99 5
*24 Mar 00 5
24 Mar 01 5
*Contested report.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR STAFF EVALUATION:
AFPC/DPPPWB states in accordance with AFI 36-2502, Airman Promotion
Program and AFPC/DPP 081945Z Msg, supplemental promotion consideration
regarding EPRs is done on a case by case basis. The member will not
be granted supplemental promotion consideration if the error or
omission was reflected on their Data Verification Record (DVR) or in
the Unit Personnel Record Group (UPRG) and the member did not take the
necessary corrective action or follow up action before the original
board convened. This was accomplished to reduce the number of "after
the fact" changes that are initiated in an effort to get another
opportunity for promotion. On 15 Nov 01, the applicant requested to
have the contested EPR removed from his record. AFPC/DPPPAE denied
his request to remove the EPR from his records on 3 Jan 02. 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. The applicant will
be entitled to supplemental promotion consideration beginning with
cycle 00E9 if approval of his request is granted (Exhibit C).
AFPC/DPPPE states the applicant submitted an appeal to the ERAB and
the ERAB was not convinced that the applicant’s EPR was erroneous or
unjust. The applicant did not submit any evidence to support voiding
the EPR. An EPR is not considered erroneous because the ratee
believes it may impact future promotions or career opportunities or
because the report is not consistent with previously rated reports.
The applicant has not submitted any documentation addressing what is
erroneous on his EPR. Nor has the applicant submitted any
documentation from his chain of command referencing their support to
void the EPR. Although current Air Force policy requires performance
feedback for personnel, the assessment made at the time of the
feedback may or may not be used in accomplishing the report. The
rater may support a senior rater endorsement but it is at the
discretion of the each evaluator whether to support or not support
senior rater endorsement based on the knowledge and information they
have
about the ratee's performance. Therefore, based on the evidence
submitted they recommend denying the applicant’s 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 the
applicant on 22 Mar 02, for review and response. 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 error or injustice. After a thorough review of the
evidence of record and applicant’s submission, we are unpersuaded that
relief should be granted. 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. If one evaluator supports senior rater
endorsement this does not mean the remaining evaluators will support
the same. It is the responsibility of each evaluator to evaluate a
ratee based on their knowledge of the ratee's performance. Although,
the applicant's rater supported senior rater endorsement, the
remaining evaluators are not obligated to support senior rater
endorsement. 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 AFBCMR Docket Number 01-
03544 in Executive Session on May 7, 2002, under the provisions of AFI
36-2603:
Mr. Vaughn E. Schlunz, Panel Chair
Mr. Grover L. Dunn, Member
Mr. George Franklin, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 5 Feb 02, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Enlisted Performance Reports.
Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPPPWB, dated 26 Feb 02.
Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/DPPPE, dated 15 Mar 02.
Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 22 Mar 02.
VAUGHN E. SCHLUNZ
Panel Chair
No evidence of reprisal is provided, nor did any reprisal action seem to exist. A complete copy of the DPPPE evaluation, with attachment, is at Exhibit D. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: In his initial response to the advisory opinions, the applicant indicated that the original EPR provided was the smoking gun in this case. He believes that he has provided sufficient information to demonstrate that the report was...
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.
_________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Chief, Inquiries/AFBCMR Section, HQ AFPC/DPPPWB, advises that supplemental promotion consideration is normally not granted if the error or omission appeared on a member’s Data Verification Record (DVR) or in the Unit Personnel Record Group (UPRG) and the individual did not take the appropriate corrective or follow-up action before the original promotion board convened. The Board majority cannot...
Rather than closing out the report, the commander removed the rater’s name from the reporting official block, assumed the duties of his reporting official, and submitted the report as if he had been his (applicant’s) supervisor for the previous 332 days. However, if the Board recommends removing the report, the applicant will be entitled to supplemental promotion consideration beginning with the 99E8 cycle, provided he is recommended by the commander and is otherwise eligible. A complete...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-01921
_________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPPPE recommends denial of the applicant’s request to void his EPR closing 26 Oct 99. The applicant stated in his appeal to the ERAB that the policy on reviewing EPRs required General R____ to perform a quality check. The complete evaluation is at Exhibit D. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant responded to the...
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-2003-00823
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 | 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 | 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...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | 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...