RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 02-01041
INDEX CODE: 111.02
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: YES
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
Her Enlisted Performance Report (EPR), rendered for the period 24 July
1997 through 11 December 1998, be declared void and removed from her
records.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
Her former rating chain’s failure to comply and follow governing Air
Force instructions rendered an unfair and inaccurate EPR. The 6-month
delay of a timely report, inaccurate and inconsistent statements in
the rater’s comments between the three EPRs, false certification of
feedback dates, lack of rater’s documentation, lack of feedback
sessions and guidance, non-compliance to referral procedures and lack
of first-hand knowledge, renders all three reports inaccurate and
unfair.
In support of her request, the applicant submits a personal statement,
with a copy of her AFI 36-2401 application and additional documents
associated with the issues cited in her contentions. The applicant’s
complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
Information extracted from the Personnel Data System reveals that the
applicant is currently serving in the Air Force Reserves in the grade
of staff sergeant (E-5), with an effective date of rank of 1 November
1995. Her last enlistment in the Air Force Reserve was on 7 September
1997, with an expiration of term of service (ETS) date of 6 September
2003. The applicant has completed a total of 10 years of satisfactory
Federal service. Applicant's EPR profile follows:
Period Ending Evaluation
15 Sep 91 - 23 Jun 97 3 - Consider
*24 Jul 97 - 11 Dec 98 2 - Not Recommended at this
Time
12 Dec 98 - 11 Dec 00 5 - Immediate Promotion
* Contested report
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
HQ ARPC/DPB recommends the application be denied. DPB stated that,
based on the applicant’s submission, there appears to be three
different EPRs prepared for the applicant covering the same rating
period. On 17 Apr 00, the Evaluation Reports Appeal Board (ERAB)
directed the EPR signed by the rater on 21 Jul 99 be referred to the
applicant. The reaccomplished EPR, signed by the rater on 4 Feb 01
and accepted for file, is not a referral report. None of the three
reports clearly show the applicant performing in all areas in an
exceptional or superior manner. The HQ ARPC/DPB evaluation is at
Exhibit C.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to applicant on 24
May 2002 for review and response. As of this date, no response has
been received by this office (Exhibit D).
_________________________________________________________________
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 error or injustice. The supporting documents provided by
the applicant are sufficient to cause doubt concerning the fairness
and accuracy of the contested report. Specifically, the Inspector
General (IG) intervention, the AFI 36-2401 actions, the statements
from her former rating chain, the three EPRs under review, and the
excessive delay in processing the contested report. Additionally, we
believe that if the applicant was performing at a marginal level, she
should have been provided more timely performance feedback by her
superiors. In our opinion, the applicant’s rating chain did not
exercise appropriate counseling/feedback prior to rendering the
performance report. We therefore believe that the apparent lack of
appropriate management practices on the part of her rating chain
resulted in an unfair EPR. In view of the circumstances involved, and
in an effort to offset any possibility of any injustice, we recommend
that the contested report be declared void and removed from the
applicant’s records.
_________________________________________________________________
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT:
The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force
relating to APPLICANT be corrected to show that the Enlisted
Performance Report, AF Form 910, rendered for the period 24 July
1997 through 11 December 1998, be declared void and removed from her
records.
_________________________________________________________________
The following members of the Board considered this application in
Executive Session on 10 July 2002, under the provisions of AFI 36-
2603:
Mr. Roscoe Hinton Jr., Panel Chair
Mr. Clarence D. Long III, Member
Ms. Ann-Cecile McDermott, Member
All members voted to correct the records, as recommended. The
following documentary evidence was considered in connection with
AFBCMR Docket Number 02-01041:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 22 Mar 02, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, HQ ARPC/DPB, dated 22 Apr 02.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 24 May 02.
ROSCOE HINTON JR.
Panel Chair
AFBCMR 02-01041
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 to APPLICANT be corrected to show that the Enlisted
Performance Report, AF Form 910, rendered for the period 24 July 1997
through 11 December 1998, be, and hereby is, declared void and removed
from her records.
JOE G. LINEBERGER
Director
Air Force Review Boards Agency
She states that her rater based his evaluation of her duty performance on an isolated part of the rating period; and the contested report is based on the last 120 days of the 20 month reporting period. A complete copy of their evaluation is attached at Exhibit D. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to applicant on 21 December 1998 for review and response within 30...
_________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Chief, Inquiries/AFBCMR Section, Enlisted Promotion & Military Testing Branch, HQ AFPC/DPPPWB, reviewed this application and states that the first time the contested report was considered in the promotion process was cycle 95E6 to technical sergeant (promotions effective August 95 - July 1996). A complete copy of the evaluation is attached at Exhibit C. The Chief, Promotion, Evaluation and...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-01623
In support of his appeal, applicant submitted a copy of his EPR closing 8 Jun 02; a computer printout (Ratee’s Initial/Follow-up Performance Feedback Notification), dated 11 Jun 01; a Report on Individual Personnel (RIP), dated 14 Feb 02; a Records Review Rip, dated 24 Jul 02; a copy of a CRO/Duty Title Worksheet; copies of his AF Forms 932, Performance Feedback Worksheet (MSgt thru CMSgt), dated 2 Jan 02 and 19 Feb 02, respectively, and a copy of emails from the Base IMA Administrator...
The rater stated she supervised the applicant from April 1997 to 13 November 1997. As of this date, no response has been received by this office (Exhibit D). CHARLENE M. BRADLEY Panel Chair AFBCMR 99-00974 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...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-00448
While current Air Force policy requires performance feedback for personnel, a direct correlation between information provided during feedback sessions and the assessments on evaluation reports does not necessarily exist. Evaluators must confirm they did not provide counseling or feedback, and that this directly resulted in an unfair evaluation. AFPC/DPPPEP's complete evaluation is at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR...
EPR profile since 1992 reflects the following: PERIOD ENDING OVERALL EVALUATION 29 Jan 92 5 29 Jan 93 5 14 May 94 5 * 14 May 95 5 14 May 96 5 15 Nov 96 5 15 Nov 97 5 5 Oct 98 5 * Contested report _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Chief, Inquiries/AFBCMR Section, Enlisted Promotion & Military Testing Branch, HQ AFPC/DPPPWB, reviewed this application and states that should the Board replace the report with the closing date of 1 October...
The commander coerced her rater and withheld information from the endorser (squadron commander) and rater, creating an inaccurate evaluation of her performance. The AFPC/DPPP evaluation, with attachment, is at Exhibit C. AFPC/DPPPWB states that based on the applicant’s date of rank to staff sergeant, the first time she was considered for promotion to technical sergeant was cycle 02E6. THOMAS S. MARKIEWICZ Vice Chair AFBCMR 02-02518 MEMORANDUM FOR THE CHIEF OF STAFF Having received and...
AF | BCMR | CY2009 | BC-2008-03399
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2008-03399 INDEX CODE: 111.02 XXXXXXX COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ___________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) closing 8 Sep 06 be voided and removed from his record. HQ AFPC/DPPPEP’s complete evaluation is at Exhibit...
Noting the rater’s statement of support, DPPPA stated the rater indicates he decided to change his evaluation and overall rating based on “performance feedback that was not available during the time of her rating considerations and post discussions with one of her past supervisors.” The rater has not stated what he knows now that he did not know when the original EPR was prepared. Applicant’s complete response is at Exhibit...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-02202
On 20 July 2005, ARPC/DPBPP, requested the applicant provide a copy of the additional rater’s e-mail, dated 10 July 2003, which the applicant’s cites as an attachment in her Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records application package. We note the comments provided by the Air Force office of primary responsibility that although Air Force policy does require performance feedback for personnel, it does not replace day-to-day feedback; and, failure to conduct a required or requested...