RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 02-02240
INDEX CODE: 111.02
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
It appears that the applicant is requesting that his Enlisted Performance
Report (EPR) rendered for the period 3 Jul 97 through 29 Jan 98, be either
upgraded or removed from his records.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
The EPR rating is not consistent with it's content. It was written as a
strong "4" or a weak "5," but the promotion recommendation assigned was
"3." In addition, the dates on the report are wrong as he arrived on
station on 9 Sep 97.
In support of his request, applicant provided copies of his EPRs and his
duty history information printout. His complete submission, with
attachments, is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
Data extracted from the personnel data system reflects that the applicant
contracted his initial enlistment in the Regular Air Force on 9 Aug 88. He
has been progressively promoted to the grade of staff sergeant, having
assumed that grade effective and with a date of rank of 1 Jul 94. The
following is a resume of his recent EPR ratings, commencing with the report
closing 28 Oct 94.
PERIOD ENDING PROMOTION RECOMMENDATION
28 Oct 94 5
28 Oct 95 5
02 Jul 96 5
02 Jul 97 5
29 Jan 98 - * 3
31 Aug 98 5
11 Apr 99 5
11 Apr 00 5
11 Apr 01 5
11 Apr 02 5
* - Contested Report
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
AFPC/DPPPWB reviewed applicant's request and defers a recommendation to
DPPPEP. However, should the Board decide to grant the applicant's request,
he would be entitled to supplemental promotion consideration. If the Board
voids the EPR or upgrades the promotion recommendation to a "4" or higher
he would not become a selectee for cycles 98E6 through 01E6, but would
become a selectee for cycle 02E6. The DPPPWB evaluation is at Exhibit C.
AFPC/DPPPEP reviewed applicant's request and recommends denial. DPPPEP
states that the report was referred to the applicant because an off duty
incident led to a failure to obey a direct order, falsification of an
official government document, and a sustained detrimental monetary impact.
While the applicant is entitled to his opinion, he has not provided any
documentation to prove the report was not a fair and accurate assessment.
He contends that the dates on the report are not valid because his date
arrived on station was 9 Sep 97 and the report "from" date is 3 Jul 97.
However, evaluation reports are designed to cover all periods of active
duty service. Active duty EPR "from" dates begin with the date following
the preceding evaluation report's closeout date. A report is not erroneous
or unfair because the applicant believes it contributed to a nonselection
for promotion or may impact future promotion or career opportunities. It
would be inappropriate to upgrade or void the report to allow the applicant
to obtain the additional points required to be promoted. The DPPPEP
evaluation is at Exhibit D.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on 30
Aug 02 for review and comment 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 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. The applicant contends that the
inclusive dates on the contested report are incorrect; however, after
reviewing the evidence of record, it appears that the "from" date was
accurately determined in accordance with guidance established by the
governing regulations that were in effect at the time the report was
written. With respect to his contention that the report is not consistent
with its content, after reviewing the evidence provided in support of his
appeal, we are not persuaded that the contested report is an inaccurate
depiction of the applicant's performance and demonstrated potential for the
period in question. In the rating process, each evaluator is required to
assess a ratee's performance, honestly and to the best of their ability.
In judging the merits of this case, we took note of the applicant's
contention that the overall rating was not consistent with the content of
the report. However, other than his own assertions, we have seen no
evidence which would lead us to believe that the rating was based on
inappropriate considerations, the rater abused his discretionary authority,
or that the report was technically flawed. Therefore, in the absence of
such evidence, we find no basis upon which to favorably consider the
applicant's request.
_________________________________________________________________
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 Docket Number 02-02240 in
Executive Session on 30 Oct 02, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:
Mr. Lawrence R. Leehy, Panel Chair
Ms. Diane Arnold, Member
Mr. Mike Novel, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 8 Jul 02, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPPPWB, dated 22 Aug 02.
Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/DPPPEP, dated 27 Aug 02.
Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 30 Aug 02.
LAWRENCE R. LEEHY
Panel Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2002 | BC-2002-02240
Active duty EPR "from" dates begin with the date following the preceding evaluation report's closeout date. The DPPPEP evaluation is at Exhibit D. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on 30 Aug 02 for review and comment within 30 days. The applicant contends that the inclusive dates on the contested report are incorrect; however, after reviewing the...
A similar appeal was filed under AFI 36-2401, Correcting Officer and Enlisted Evaluation Reports, which was denied by the Evaluation Reports Appeal Board (ERAB) on 2 Apr 98. The EPR was designed to provide a rating for a specific period of time based on the performance noted during that period, not based on previous performance. A complete copy of their evaluation, with attachment, is attached at Exhibit D. __________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S...
Applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A. A complete copy of the DPPPAB evaluation is at Exhibit D. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Applicant indicated that he is providing all the applicable documents concerning his request to have the contested report corrected. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: The pertinent military records of the Department of...
_________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: HQ AFPC/DPPPWB addressed the supplemental promotion consideration issue should the applicant’s request be approved. DPPPWB stated that the first time the contested report was considered in the promotion process was Cycle 97E5 to staff sergeant (E-5), promotions effective Sep 97 - Aug 98. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Having...
A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit C. The Chief, Performance Evaluation Section, AFPC/DPPPEP, also reviewed this application and indicated that while the applicant believes the ratings and comments on the EPR are inconsistent with her prior and subsequent evaluations, that does not render the report erroneous or unjust. DPPPEP does not believe that a personality conflict existed between the applicant and the rater. A complete copy of their evaluation is...
In support of his appeal, the applicant provided a personal statement, copies of several of his EPRs, a statement from the rater and indorser of the contested report, and other documentation relating to his appeal. A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit C. The Chief, BCMR & SSB Section, AFPC/DPPPAB, also reviewed this application and indicated that the applicant was involved in an off- duty domestic incident during the time the contested EPR was being finalized. ...
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 98-03025 INDEX CODE: 111.02 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: The Enlisted Performance Reports (EPR) closing 19 Mar 97 and 25 Jul 97 be declared void and removed from his records. Concerning the EPR closing 25 Jul 97, DPPPA noted the applicant’s contention that the 25 Jul 97 EPR was biased against...
Too much emphasis was placed on a Letter of Admonition (LOA); there was bias by the additional rater; and, the number of days of supervision is incorrect. The HQ AFPC/DPPPEP evaluation is at Exhibit C. HQ AFPC/DPPPWB stated that the first time the contested report was considered in the promotion process was Cycle 01E7 to master sergeant (E-7), promotions effective Aug 01 - Jul 02. However, they do not, in the Board majority’s opinion, support a finding that the evaluators were unable to...
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.
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-01995
Instead, para 4.7.5.2 is the appropriate reference that applies to the applicant and it states, “…the LOE becomes a referral document attached to the report.” After reviewing the referral EPR, the rater did not attach the LOE to the applicant’s referral EPR, therefore, as an administrative correction, DPPPEP recommends the LOE be attached to the referral EPR with corrections made to the “From and Thru” dates. DPPPWB states the first time the contested report would normally have...