RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 02-01834
INDEX CODE: 111.02
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
Her Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) rendered for the period 2 May 1990
through 1 May 1999 be removed from her records and an AF Form 77,
Supplemental Evaluation Sheet, be submitted in its place.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
There was insufficient supervision under the rater and additional rater for
an EPR to be rendered.
In support of her request applicant submits a copy of the personnel data
roster, DFAS print-out for Reserve participation, copy of letter from
AFRC/IGQ, a copy of the contested report, a copy of the Evaluation Reports
Appeal Board (ERAB) decision and a copy of HQ AFRC message traffic on
Reserve Enlisted Performance Reports - New Requirements, SSgt and Above.
Applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The Military Personnel Database (MilPDS) reflects that the applicant has a
pay date of 22 January 1987. Following her successful completion of basic
military and technical training, she was assigned to an active Reserve
position. As of the Retirement Year (RYE) ending 21 January 2002, she has
earned 15 satisfactory years of Federal service. A similar appeal by the
applicant was considered and denied by the ERAB. The following is a resume
of her EPR profile:
PERIOD ENDING PROMOTION RECOMMENDATION
22 Jan 87 - 1 May 90 NO REPORT RENDERED
01 May 99 4 (contested report)
01 May 01 5
Pursuant to a Inspector General (IG) complaint filed by the applicant
containing 8 allegations of unprofessional relationship/inappropriate
behavior, conduct unbecoming a non-commissioned officer, conduct unbecoming
an officer and abuse of authority, which resulted in a “hostile work
environment,” an investigation was conducted by an investigating officer
appointed by the command IG during the period 7 May through 4 November
2000. In a report signed on 18 November 2000, the investigating officer
concluded that four of the applicant’s allegations were substantiated.
Following 482d FW/JA’s review on 1 April 2000, the IG issued a revised
summary report of investigation on 6 May 2001. Based on the HQ AFRC/JAJ
review, HQ AFRC/IGQ amended the report of investigation and all allegations
were found to be unsubstantiated (Exhibit E).
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
ARPC/DPB recommends the application be denied. DPB states that during
January, February and March 1999, the applicant performed 14 days inactive
duty training and five days active duty training for a total of 19 points.
The guidelines prescribed in the message submitted by the applicant, states
reestablishing the requirement for unit reservists to have a minimum of 16
points under direct supervision of their rater before an EPR is required.
The applicant had more than the minimum 16 points under the supervision of
the rater before her EPR was prepared. ARPC/DPB evaluation is at Exhibit
C.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
Applicant states that the original EPR, dated 2 May 1990 - 1 May 1998 was
lost by the MPF. Instead of reconstructing an EPR to the original EPR, the
MPF changed the shell dates resulting in a new commander having to write
the EPR. This commander wrote the EPR based on opinions of a supervisor
having personal issues with her. She requests the Board review IG Case
Number UCR 000002 and RXC010267. Applicant’s letter is at 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. Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the
existence of error or injustice. After thoroughly reviewing the
documentation submitted with this appeal, we are not persuaded that the
contested report is an inaccurate assessment of the applicant's performance
during the contested time period. The applicant asserts that there was
insufficient supervision under the rater and additional rater for an
Evaluation Performance Report (EPR) to be rendered; however, the Board
finds insufficient documentation to support this contention. The
guidelines prescribed in the message provided by the applicant (Reserve
Enlisted Performance Reports (EPRs) - New Requirements, SSG and Above),
establishes the requirement for unit reservists to have a minimum of 16
points under direct supervision of their rater. We note that the applicant
accumulated 19 points for training during the months of January through
March 1999, thus exceeding the minimum required points. In addition, we
have noted the assessment of the Headquarters Air Force Reserve Command
Inspector General’s addendum to the Report of Investigation, in which they
found that all allegations to include the allegation of abuse of authority,
which resulted in a “hostile work environment” against her rater and
additional rater, were unsubstantiated. Based on this information and in
the absence of any evidence by the applicant that successfully refutes
these findings, the Board finds no basis upon which 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 application in Executive
Session on 16 April 2003 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:
Mr. Roscoe Hinton Jr, Panel Chair
Mr. Steven A. Shaw, Member
Ms. Brenda L. Romine, Member
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 28 May 02, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, ARPC/DPB, dated 20 Jun 02 w/atchs.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 3 Jul 02.
Exhibit E. Letter, Applicant, dated 17 Jul 02.
Exhibit F. Letter, Addendum to Report of Investigation, HQ
AFRC/IGQ w/atchs, dated 19 Nov 01 (withdrawn).
ROSCOE HINTON JR
Panel Chair
The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. _________________________________________________________________ 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 24 July 1997 through 11 December 1998, be declared void and removed from her records. ROSCOE HINTON JR. Panel Chair AFBCMR 02-01041 MEMORANDUM...
A copy of the complete Air Force evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant reviewed the advisory opinion and, in a letter dated 14 April 1999, asserted the IG investigation was flawed because the rater never discussed any reported complaints during her performance feedback session five months before the IG investigation. After a thorough review of the evidence of...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-01623
In support of his appeal, applicant submitted a copy of his EPR closing 8 Jun 02; a computer printout (Ratee’s Initial/Follow-up Performance Feedback Notification), dated 11 Jun 01; a Report on Individual Personnel (RIP), dated 14 Feb 02; a Records Review Rip, dated 24 Jul 02; a copy of a CRO/Duty Title Worksheet; copies of his AF Forms 932, Performance Feedback Worksheet (MSgt thru CMSgt), dated 2 Jan 02 and 19 Feb 02, respectively, and a copy of emails from the Base IMA Administrator...
AF | BCMR | CY1999 | BC-1998-00355
In support of her request, applicant submits a revised application, with a personal statement, copies of the contested OPR, the AFI 36- 2401 application and the decision, a statement from the rater, SAF/IGQ addendum to the USAFE/IG report of investigation, and additional documents associated with the issues cited in her contentions (Exhibit A). DPPPA stated that the applicant received a referral Officer Performance Report (OPR), closing 31 Mar 94, that was subsequently removed by the...
In support of her request, applicant submits a revised application, with a personal statement, copies of the contested OPR, the AFI 36- 2401 application and the decision, a statement from the rater, SAF/IGQ addendum to the USAFE/IG report of investigation, and additional documents associated with the issues cited in her contentions (Exhibit A). DPPPA stated that the applicant received a referral Officer Performance Report (OPR), closing 31 Mar 94, that was subsequently removed by the...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-02499
The IG dismissed the complaint because documented evidence against the complainant supported the 2 EPR rating. After a thorough review of the evidence of record and applicant’s submission, we are unpersuaded that the contested EPR should be removed from her record. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of material error or injustice; that...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC-2012-02987
On 13 Jul 11, the DoD/IG office completed their review of the applicants reprisal case and determined that there was no evidence of reprisal/abuse of authority. On 19 Jan 12, the DoD/IG completed their review of the applicants complaint dated 4 Jul 11, and determined that there was no evidence of reprisal by her former commander. DPSID states that Air Force policy is that an evaluation report is accurate as written when it becomes a matter of record.
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-03068
The applicant’s nomination package for the FY06 LTC PV Selection Board was received by HQ ARPC on 29 Apr 05. Review of the nomination package determined the applicant did not meet one of the criteria for PV consideration, i.e., having at least 50 credit points for a year of satisfactory federal service during the last full R/R year. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-02202
On 20 July 2005, ARPC/DPBPP, requested the applicant provide a copy of the additional rater’s e-mail, dated 10 July 2003, which the applicant’s cites as an attachment in her Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records application package. We note the comments provided by the Air Force office of primary responsibility that although Air Force policy does require performance feedback for personnel, it does not replace day-to-day feedback; and, failure to conduct a required or requested...
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...