RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 02-01683
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: YES
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
The Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) rendered for the period 1
June 2001 through 6 December 2001 be removed from his records.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
He believes the EPR is unjust because his rater rated him a 5. If
people above the rater did not want to concur, they should have put
the reason why and marked him down, they should not have changed the
rating. It states that in AFI 36-2406 evaluators and no one else are
required to mark reports. If his rater said he did not give him an
overall 4, then someone changed it. If that's so, the report is
wrong. He doesn't know what went wrong, but either the Admin section
made an error, or someone in his chain is trying to harm his career by
letting the rating go as is, and making it seem that his rater agreed
with the 4 rating-this is wrong.
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.
Applicant's complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The applicant is currently serving in the Regular Air Force in the
grade of technical sergeant.
The applicant filed an appeal under the provisions of AFI 36-2401,
Correcting Officer and Enlisted Evaluation Reports, 1 Dec 97. On 4
April 2002 the Evaluation Reports Appeal Board (ERAB) declined to
formerly review the application and returned it without action. The
ERAB could not consider this request because approving it would cause
the report to be technically flawed. The technical flaw is that these
actions require an additional rater to nonconcur with the rater and
cite the specific reasons for nonoccurrence. In addition, the unit
commander would have to concur/nonconcur with the EPR and provide
comments when nonconcurring. It would be necessary for the applicant
to provide a corrected EPR with his application to the ERAB.
EPR profile since 1997 reflects the following:
PERIOD ENDING OVERALL EVALUATION
1 Jan 97 5
1 Jan 98 5
1 Jan 99 5
1 Jan 00 5
30 May 00 5
31 May 01 5
* 6 Dec 01 4
* Contested report.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
AFPC/DPPPEP recommends the applicant’s request be denied. The
applicant contends someone in the chain changed the ratings in an
attempt to harm his career. The rater provided support by stating,
"He did not authorize or concur with the rating being lowered to a
"4." However, he further states, "Due to me PCSing prior to the
Closeout of the "EPR", I signed some blank "EPR" forms in case there
were minor changes after my departure. This is in direct violation of
AFI 36-2406, paragraph 3.12.11., and as such, the rater waived his
rights as an evaluator. Therefore, the additional rater was not
required to nonconcur. Since the rater waived his rights as an
evaluator, the additional rater assumed those responsibilities and
rated the applicant accordingly. Air Force policy is that an
evaluation report is accurate as written when it becomes a matter of
record. Even had the rater not waived his evaluator rights, the
ultimate rating would be the same. Therefore, the report is not
erroneous or unjust.
The AFPC/DPPPEP evaluation is attached at Exhibit C.
AFPC/DPPPWB deferred to the recommendation of AFPC/DPPPEP. DPPPWB
indicates that the first time the report was considered in the
promotion process was cycle 02E7 to master sergeant (promotions
effective Aug 02 - Jul 03). Should the AFBCMR void this report as
requested, providing he is otherwise eligible, the applicant will be
entitled to supplemental consideration for this cycle. He would not
become a select for the 02E7 cycle as his total score would increase
to 337.96, below 340.82 required for selection in his Air Force
Specialty Code (AFSC).
The AFPC/DPPPWB evaluation is attached at Exhibit D.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
The applicant reviewed the evaluations and stated that he would not be
asking that the report be thrown out if something was not wrong. If
the person that nonconcurred had put his reasoning everything would be
by the AFI, but they did not. He received a favorable feedback on 10
Aug 02; nothing would have had him to suspect that he was going to be
marked down. When he stated on his previous letter that he wanted to
change the raters' marking to 5, he also meant the additional raters,
but he will like his application to move forward without delay.
Applicant's complete submission 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 error or injustice. After reviewing the supporting
documentation submitted by the applicant, we believe the contested
report is not an accurate assessment of applicant's performance during
the period in question. In this respect, we note the statement
submitted from the rater indicating that he rated the applicant an
overall “5” prior to his departure from --- AFB, GA. The rater agrees
that the contested report is an inaccurate assessment of applicant’s
performance. In view of this statement and in the absence of evidence
to question his integrity, we recommend the contested report be
declared void and removed from his record.
____________________________________________________________
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 1 June 2001 through 6 December 2001, be
declared void and removed from his records.
____________________________________________________________
The following members of the Board considered Docket Number 02-01683 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
All members voted to correct the records, as recommended. The following
documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, 10 May 02, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPPPEP, dated 24 Jun 02.
Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/DPPPWB, dated 25 Jun 02.
Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 19 Jul 02.
Exhibit F. Letter, Applicant, dated 19 Aug 02, w/atch.
CHARLENE M. BRADLEY
Panel Chair
AFBCMR 02-01683
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 1 June 2001 through 6 December
2001, be, and hereby is, declared void and removed from his records.
JOE G. LINEBERGER
Director
Air Force Review Boards Agency
They indicated that the first time the report was considered in the promotion process was cycle 02E7 to master sergeant (promotions effective August 2002 - July 2003). The evaluation is at Exhibit D. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant reviewed the evaluations and provided a response, which is at Exhibit F. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT: 1. We...
The following is a resume of his EPR profile: PERIOD ENDING PROMOTION RECOMMENDATION 15 May 00 3 (Contested Report) 15 May 01 3 (Contested Report) 15 May 02 5 Pursuant to a Inspector General (IG) complaint filed by the applicant containing two allegations that his additional rater inappropriately influenced his rater to give him a lower rating on the EPRs for the periods closing 15 May 00 and 15 May 01 and one allegation that the additional rater declined to support an EPR appeal package and...
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...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-02758
DPPPE contends, as did the ERAB, that the applicant failed to provide specific documentation to support any of his allegations as well as being unclear in his statement citing evidence of a miscommunication between two other parties. (Exhibit D) _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on 8 November 2002, for review and comment within 30 days. After...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-01959
_________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPPPWB states that should the AFBCMR grant his request, providing he is otherwise eligible, the applicant will be entitled to supplemental promotion consideration beginning with cycle 01E6. Applicant’s contention that Family Advocacy assumed he had argued with his wife in front of the children at home, but did not have evidence to substantiate the allegation and therefore, it is unjust, they state,...
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...
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: 01-01274 INDEX CODE: 111.02 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: The Enlisted Performance Report (EPR), rendered for the period 9 January 1989 through 8 January 1990, be changed to reflect a promotion recommendation of “5.” _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT...
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...
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...