RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 02-01489
COUNSEL: None
HEARING DESIRED: No
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
The Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) rendered for the period 21
February 2001 through 20 February 2002 be changed from an overall 4 to
an overall 5.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
The unjustified low rating in Section III, How well does ratee perform
assigned duties, caused his overall rating to drop to a 4.
In support of the appeal, applicant submits a copy of his EPR, AF Form
931, Performance Feedback Worksheet, an email from his supervisor and
a copy of the Top Officer Accessions Recruiter Award.
Applicant's complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
Applicant is currently serving in the Regular Air Force in the grade
of technical sergeant.
The applicant did not file an appeal under the provisions of AFI 36-
2401, Correcting Officer and Enlisted Evaluation Reports.
Based on the applicant's date of rank to technical sergeant, the first
time the report will be considered in the promotion process to master
sergeant (promotions effective Aug 03-Jul 04) is cycle 03E7.
EPR profile since 1996 reflects the following:
PERIOD ENDING OVERALL EVALUATION
2 Mar 96 5
20 Feb 97 4 (Referral)
20 Feb 98 5
20 Feb 99 5
20 Feb 00 5
20 Feb 01 5
* 20 Feb 02 4
* Contested report.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
AFPC/DPPPEP recommends denial. The applicant contends that the low
rating in Section III of his EPR caused the overall 4 rating.
Evaluators should consider each section of the evaluation when
determining the final rating of the member. However, there is no
direct correlation between the ratings given in Section III and the
overall promotion recommendation in Section IV. Although Section III
is designed to allow raters to accurately describe the ratee's current
performance, Section IV reflects a readiness for increased
rank/responsibility and how the ratee compares to others in the same
grade and AFSC.
Since only the evaluators know what influenced their assessments and
ratings, the most effective evidence consists of statements from the
rater, additional rater, and commander. However, no documentation has
been provided from them. While the applicant may not agree with their
assessment, his own assessment of his performance does not make the
report inaccurate or unjust.
AFPC/DPPPEP complete evaluation is attached at Exhibit C.
AFPC/DPPPWB defer to the recommendation of AFPC/DPPPEP.
AFPC/DPPPWB complete evaluation is attached at Exhibit D.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
The applicant reviewed the Air Force evaluations and stated that he
has been a certified Officer Accessions Recruiter for over 3 years.
The Flight Commander, Capt B-- wrote in her comments that he is (Head
and Shoulders my Best Nurse Recruiter). This does not explain the low
rating in section III #1. He is getting mixed signals and as for his
last Feedback dated 28 Sept 01, his rater stated (You have made
significant improvements) also sends mixed signals. As for the letter
from his rater to Major W--- --- RCG/RSC dated 14 Feb 02 that outlined
his successful nurse recruiting efforts totally conflicts with the
rating in section III of the EPR. If he thought that he deserved an
overall 4 rating, he would not have submitted this appeal. Please
look at all the positive accomplishments and he is sure that you will
agree that he is leading his Recruiting Flight in Nurse applications,
and to say that he is a (good performer, performs routine duties
satisfactory) does not reflect the effort he has put into this job.
Maybe he should just retire and move on to other things. But he truly
believes that he is making a difference.
_________________________________________________________________
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 reviewing the evidence
submitted with this appeal, the Board is not persuaded that the
contested report should be changed. The Board notes that the
applicant has not submitted any statements from the rating chain to
support his appeal. In view of the above findings, we agree with the
opinion and recommendation of the Air Force and adopt their rationale
as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant has not been the
victim of an error or injustice. Therefore, in the absence of evidence
to the contrary, the Board finds 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 this Docket Number 02-
01489 in Executive Session on 31 October 2002, under the provisions of
AFI 36-2603:
Ms. Charlene M. Bradley, Panel Chair
Mr. John E. B. Smith, Member
Mr. Frederick R. Beaman III, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 16 Apr 02, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPPPEP, dated 3 Jul 02.
Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/DPPPWB, dated 25 Jun 02.
Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 9 Jul 02.
Exhibit F. Applicant's response, dated 16 Jul 02.
CHARLENE M. BRADLEY
Panel Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2002 | BC-2002-01683
In support of the applicant's appeal, he submits a copy of the contested EPR, AF Form 948, Application For Correction/Removal of Evaluation Reports, a statement from his rater, and the ERAB report. It would be necessary for the applicant to provide a corrected EPR with his application to the ERAB. The AFPC/DPPPWB evaluation is attached at Exhibit D. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant reviewed the...
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2007-00452
In support of his request, the applicant submits copies of his EPRs; performance feedback evaluations; awards and decorations; letters of support; leave and earnings statements; temporary duty (TDY) documentation; excerpts of Air Force Instruction (AFI) 36-2406; Application for Correction/Removal of Evaluation Reports and correspondence concerning supplemental board consideration. DPPPEP states a report is not erroneous or unfair because the applicant believes it contributed to a...
Except for the contested report and a 2 Dec 91 EPR having an overall rating of “4,” all of the applicant’s performance reports since Dec 90 have had overall ratings of “5.” Since the Article 15’s suspended reduction expired on 12 Aug 96, prior to the 31 Dec 96 Promotion Eligibility Cutoff Date (PECD) for promotion cycle 97E6, the Article 15 did not affect the applicant’s eligibility for promotion consideration to technical sergeant for that cycle. ...
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...
___________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Enlisted Promotion and Military Testing Branch, AFPC/DPPPWB, states that if the Board removes the referral EPR as requested, the applicant will be entitled to supplemental promotion consideration for the 00E7 cycle provided he is otherwise qualified and recommended by his commander. Because the applicant’s last EPR was referral closing 1 June 1999 (he did not receive his next EPR until 5 June...
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...
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 02-01667 INDEX CODE: 111.02 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His Enlisted Performance Report (EPR), rendered for the period 2 Feb 97 through 1 Feb 98, be replaced with the reaccomplished EPR provided; and, that he be provided supplemental promotion consideration to the grade of senior master...
The Evaluation Reports Appeal Board (ERAB) returned the application without action because the member did not provide the required documentation to support his contentions. Although the applicant states he provided his rater with key information for his EPR and he alleges that significant accomplishments were not in his evaluation report, the rater determines the content of the evaluation report. A complete copy of their evaluation is attached at Exhibit...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-02535
A performance feedback worksheet with all items marked “needs little or no improvement” means the ratee is meeting the rater’s standard at the time. The complete evaluation is at Exhibit C. AFPC/DPPPEP evaluated the impact of the contested EPR on the applicant’s previous promotion considerations. The complete evaluation is at Exhibit D. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: In his response to the Air Force evaluation,...
TSgt O--- was removed as his supervisor in November 1997. The DPPPEP evaluation is at Exhibit B. AFPC/DPPPWB reviewed applicant’s request and states that provided he is otherwise eligible, if the 4 Jan 98 EPR were to be voided he would not become a selectee for the 99E6 promotion cycle. The applicant has established that a possible conflict existed between himself and the rater on the report closing 4 January 1998.