RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 02-03566
INDEX CODE: 111.02
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
The Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) rendered for the period 12 July
1999 through 11 July 2000 be declared void and removed from his
records.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
The EPR is biased and administered as a reprisal by the rater for
reasons that were not duty related. The rater failed to provide
verbal/written feedback prior to closeout of the EPR indicating that
he was not progressing or performing up to her standards. The rater
had 160 days to provide sufficient documentation warranting such a
report. The rater said that he abused his position to correct Air
Force members violating dress and appearance standards. The EPR is
also the result of unfair treatment by the rater.
In support of the appeal, applicant submits a copy of his mid-term
performance feedback, a copy of the contested EPR with appeal, a copy
of his training records, copies of the instructor observations, and
six character references. Applicant's complete submission is attached
at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The applicant is currently serving in the Regular Air Force in the
grade of technical sergeant.
EPR profile since 1996 reflects the following:
PERIOD ENDING PROMOTION RECOMMENDATION
22 Jan 96 5
29 Sep 96 4
29 Sep 97 5
29 Sep 98 5
11 Jul 99 5
*11 Jul 00 4
30 Dec 00 5
30 Dec 01 5
*Contested Report
The applicant filed an appeal under the provisions of AFI 36-2401,
Correcting Officer and Enlisted Evaluation Reports, 1 December 1997.
The Evaluation Reports Appeal Board (ERAB) denied his request.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
AFPC/DPPPE states that although there is no direct correlation between
the performance feedback and the final EPR, it is a tool that raters
use to identify improvement areas and shortcomings, along with
identifying positive aspects of their performance. In reviewing the
performance feedback, it is clear that the rater felt the applicant
required little improvement on the rated area; however, it is also
quite evident that the applicant did require focus in some areas due
to previous problems. Specifically identified are the areas of taking
time off of work, leave related issues, and financial issues.
Additionally, the rater pointed out several areas in which the
applicant required improvement (i.e., initiative, fostering teamwork,
writing and speaking skills, etc.). Furthermore, in accordance with
(IAW) AFI 36-2406, paragraph 2.3, after receiving the midterm feedback
identifying these improvement areas, the applicant could have
requested an additional performance feedback closer to the EPR close-
out date to get an idea of how well he actually improved within these
areas.
In summary, Air Force policy is that an evaluation report is accurate
as written when it becomes a matter of record. There are no errors or
injustices cited in the contested report. Therefore, they recommend
denial of applicant’s 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). Should the AFBCMR void the report
as requested, providing he is otherwise eligible, the applicant will
be entitled to supplemental consideration beginning with cycle 03E7
providing he is not selected during the initial selection process.
However, if favorable results are received by 1 May 2003, no
supplemental consideration would be required as there would be
sufficient time to update the promotion file. Promotions for this
cycle will be accomplished during the May/June 2003 timeframe.
They defer to the recommendation of AFPC/DPPPE regarding the
applicant’s request to have the contested report removed.
A complete copy of their evaluation is attached at Exhibit D.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
On 17 January 2003, copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded
to the applicant for review and response within 30 days. As of this
date, no response has been received by this office.
_________________________________________________________________
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 all the evidence
provided, we are unpersuaded that the contested report is an
inaccurate depiction of the applicant’s performance 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. The
applicant asserts that the rater was biased, that the report was a
form of reprisal, and that the rater abused her position. However, he
has provided no substantiation for these serious allegations of
inappropriate behavior on the part of his rater. In an independent
review, the squadron commander concurred with the rater’s assessments.
We have noted the statements provided in support of the applicant’s
appeal. While laudatory of the applicant’s character and performance,
there is no indication that these individuals had access to the
information available to the applicant’s rating chain or that they
were in positions to observe his day-to-day duty performance during
the period covered by the report. In view of the above and in the
absence of documentary evidence by the applicant which would lead us
to believe that his evaluators abused their discretionary authority,
that the ratings on the contested report were based on inappropriate
considerations or that the report is technically flawed, we have no
basis on which to favorably consider his request that the report be
removed from his records.
_________________________________________________________________
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 this application in
Executive Session on 5 March 2003, under the provisions of AFI 36-
2603:
Ms. Marilyn Thomas, Panel Chair
Mr. William H. Anderson, Member
Mr. Thomas J. Topolski, Jr., Member
The following documentary evidence was considered in connection with
AFBCMR Docket No. 02-03566:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 31 Oct 02, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPPPE, dated 19 Dec 02.
Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/DPPPWB, 6 Jan 03.
Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 17 Jan 03.
MARILYN THOMAS
Panel Chair
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...
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...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-01811
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2003-01811 INDEX CODE: 111.00 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: The Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) rendered for the period 6 October 1999 through 5 October 2000 be declared void and removed from his records and he be provided supplemental consideration for promotion to the grade of master...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-04004
A complete copy of their evaluation is attached at Exhibit D. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR STAFF EVALUATION: The applicant reviewed the Air Force evaluation and states his package contained information showing that favoritism and racism were prevalent in his squadron. While the majority notes the applicant indicates two of his rating chain members was allegedly charged and convicted of racial discrimination, he has not provided...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-01921
_________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPPPE recommends denial of the applicant’s request to void his EPR closing 26 Oct 99. The applicant stated in his appeal to the ERAB that the policy on reviewing EPRs required General R____ to perform a quality check. The complete evaluation is at Exhibit D. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant responded to the...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-01890
_________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: HQ AFPC/DPPP recommends the application be denied. DPPP states that applications based on the fact that the ratee and his evaluators were geographically separated, or working on a different shift, require conclusive documentation show they had no valid basis on which to assess performance. Additionally, we note that the rater on the contested report was in the applicant’s rating chain on the preceding...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-02200
The applicant’s request under AFI 36-2401 to have the contested EPR removed from his records was denied by the ERAB. _________________________________________________________________ The following members of the Board considered Docket Number BC-2003-02200 in Executive Session on 8 October 2003, under the provisions of AFI 36- 2603: Mr. Thomas S. Markiewicz, Chair Ms. Martha Maust, Member Mr. Michael V. Barbino, Member By majority vote, the Board voted to deny the application. Exhibit B.
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...
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...
He also believes the performance feedback worksheet (PFW) does not “mirror” the EPR and his rater based his evaluation “on the moment” and disregarded the Enlisted Evaluation System (EES). _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Chief, Inquiries/AFBCMR Section, AFPC/DPPPWB, reviewed this application and indicated that the first time the report was considered in the promotion process was cycle 98E6 to technical sergeant (promotions...