RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2002-02982
INDEX CODE: 111.02
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX COUNSEL: NONE
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX HEARING DESIRED: NO
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
Her Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) rendered for the period of 11 January
1999 through 15 September 1999 be upgraded from an overall rating of “4” to
an overall rating of a “5” or the report be removed from her records.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
Her indorser and commander were unaware of her situation during the
reporting period in question, creating an inaccurate evaluation of her
performance.
In support of her request, applicant submits a copy of the Evaluation
Reports Appeal Board (ERAB) denial letter dated 21 September 2000, a copy
of the contested EPR, a copy of two performance feedback worksheets dated
28 April 1999 and 4 August 1999, supporting statements from her additional
rater and commander, and copies of seven character reference letters.
The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The Military Personnel Database (MilPDS) indicates applicant has a Total
Active Federal Military Service Date of 18 November 1996. She has
continually served on active duty and has been progressively promoted to
the grade of technical sergeant (E-6), effective and with a date of rank of
1 February 2002. The MilPDS reflects the applicant has been awarded the
Air Force Achievement Medal and the Air Force Commendation Medal with two
Oak Leaf Clusters.
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. A
copy of the ERAB’s decision is included with Exhibit A.
The following is a resume of the applicant’s EPR profile:
PERIOD ENDING PROMOTION RECOMMENDATION
6 Apr 96 5
6 Apr 97 5
6 Apr 98 5
10 Jan 99 5
15 Sep 99* 4
15 Sep 00 5
14 Sep 01 5
14 Dec 02 5
* Contested report
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
AFPC/DPPPE recommends denial. DPPPE indicates the ERAB denied the
applicant’s appeal because she failed to provide the specific mitigating
circumstances that prevented the additional rater and indorser from
providing an accurate evaluation. DPPAE concurs and states that in
accordance with AFI 36-2401, Correcting Officer and Enlisted Evaluation
Reports dated 1 December 1997, if other evaluators support an appeal
because they were unaware of a conflict at the time, they should provide
specific information (and cite their sources), which leads them to believe
the report is not an objective assessment. The applicant’s additional
rater and commander signed memorandums supporting her request to upgrade
her EPR to an overall rating of “5”; however, neither have identified
specific circumstances that may have prevented them from providing a fair
and accurate evaluation. In addition, DPPPE states that simply upgrading
the EPR overall rating from “4” to “5” is not feasible. According to AFI
36-2406, Table 3.2, if there is disagreement between evaluators, the
disagreeing evaluator marks the nonconcur block, initials the block deemed
more appropriate, and comments on the disagreement. The AFPC/DPPPE
evaluation is at Exhibit C.
AFPC/DPPPWB defers to DPPPEP’s recommendation. DPPPWB states the first
time the applicant’s contested report was used in the promotion process was
cycle 00E6 to technical sergeant. If the EPR were upgraded as requested
and the applicant is otherwise eligible, she would be entitled to
supplemental consideration beginning with cycle 00E6. However, she would
not be selected as her total score would increase to 289.57 and the score
required for selection in her Air Force Specialty Code (AFSC) is 330.57.
The applicant was selected for promotion to technical sergeant during cycle
01E6. The AFPC/DPPPWB evaluation is at Exhibit D.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
On 25 October 2002, copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to
the applicant for review and comment. As of this date, this office has
received no response (Exhibit E).
_________________________________________________________________
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 all the evidence
provided, the Board majority believes some relief is warranted in this
case. The Board majority noted the statements provided by the applicant’s
peers and other individuals who were assigned to the same duty location and
had professional contacts with the applicant. While extremely laudatory of
the applicant’s performance, these individuals were not charged with the
responsibility for assessing the applicant’s performance and their
statements do not provide a showing that her rater’s assessment was based
on factors other than her duty performance. The most critical evidence
provided for our review is contained in the statements by the additional
rater and the commander. It appears that these individuals are of the
opinion that the applicant was not provided sufficient guidance by the
rater to improve her performance to a degree that would meet her rater’s
expectations. Neither of the evaluators specifically faults the rater’s
assessment on the second feedback the applicant received. This being the
case and accepting that perhaps the applicant was not provided sufficient
guidance to improve her performance at the time the feedback was given, the
Board majority believes the fairness of the contested report is
questionable. However, the Board majority is not persuaded that the
circumstances presented in this application warrant approval of the
applicant’s stated request to upgrade the promotion recommendation she
received because to do so would constitute a presupposition the Board
majority is not prepared to make. Rather, we are of the opinion that by
voiding the contested report, she would be afforded proper and fitting
relief based on the circumstances and the evidence presented here.
Therefore, we do so recommend.
________________________________________________________________
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 (AB
thru TSgt), AF Form 910, rendered for the period 11 January 1999 through 15
September 1999 be, and hereby is, declared void and removed from her
records.
________________________________________________________________
The following members of the Board considered this application in Executive
Session on 16 April 2003, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:
Mr. Roscoe Hinton Jr., Panel Chair
Ms. Brenda L. Romine, Member
Mr. Steven A. Shaw, Member
By a majority vote, the Board recommended to grant the application. Mr.
Shaw voted to deny the application request but did not wish to submit a
minority report. The following documentary evidence was considered:
The following documentary evidence was considered in connection with AFBCMR
Docket No. BC-2002-02982:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 12 Sep 02, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPPPE, dated 4 Oct 02.
Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/DPPPWB, dated 10 Oct 02.
Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 14 Feb 03.
ROSCOE HINTON JR.
Panel Chair
AFBCMR BC-2002-02982
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 XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX, be corrected to show that the Enlisted
Performance Report (AB thru TSgt), AF Form 910, rendered for the period 11
January 1999 through 15 September 1999 be, and hereby is, declared void and
removed from her records.
JOE G. LINEBERGER
Director
Air Force Review Boards Agency
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...
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.
The Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) rendered for the period 11 May 1998 through 2 February 1999 be upgraded from a rating of “4” to a rating of “5” and the closeout date of the report changed to 11 November 1998. The start date for the Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) rendered for the period 3 February 1999 through 24 December 1999, be changed to 12 November 1998. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Chief, Inquiries/AFBCMR Section,...
EPR profile since 1997 reflects the following: PERIOD ENDING EVALUATION OF POTENTIAL 22 Apr 97 4 * 30 Jan 98 1 30 May 98 4 30 Sep 98 5 10 Jul 99 5 14 May 00 5 * Contested report _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Chief, Inquiries/AFBCMR Section, Enlisted Promotion and Military Testing Branch, AFPC/DPPPWB, reviewed this application and states that based on the applicant’s date of rank for senior airman, the first time the report was...
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...
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.
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2004-03357
CLOSING DATE OVERALL EVALUATION 31 Dec 03 5 31 Dec 02 5 31 Dec 01 4 (Contested) 15 Nov 00 5 31 Dec 99 5 1 May 99 5 1 May 98 5 1 May 97 5 1 May 96 5 1 May 95 5 The applicant filed a similar appeal under the provisions of AFI 36- 2401. He further contended he had only 48 days of supervision with the rater of the 31 Dec 01 EPR, and that the closeout date was changed from 15 Nov 01 to 31 Dec 01. If the applicant received a new rater in Jul 01 as the Air Force asserts, then the EPR’s reporting...
However, based on the supporting statement from the former MPF chief and the superior ratings the applicant has received before and since, the majority of the Board believes the possibility exists that the contested EPR may be flawed. Therefore, in order to offset the possibility of an injustice, the Board majority concludes that any doubt should be resolved in this applicant’s favor by voiding the 31 Jul 99 EPR from his records and granting him supplemental promotion consideration. ...
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 | CY2002 | BC-2002-03566
The Evaluation Reports Appeal Board (ERAB) denied his request. A complete copy of the evaluation, with attachment, is attached at Exhibit C. AFPC/DPPPWB states that based on the applicant’s date of rank to technical sergeant, the first time the contested report will be used in the promotion process is cycle 03E7 to master sergeant (promotions effective August 2003 - July 2004). However, if favorable results are received by 1 May 2003, no supplemental consideration would be required as...