RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 02-02518
INDEX CODE: 111.02
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
Her Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) rendered for the period of 12 October
1999 through 11 October 2000 be removed from her records.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
She received an unfair rating because of the opinion of her flight
commander. His personal opinion of her was reprisal as a retribution for
seeking advice from the Inspector General. The commander coerced her rater
and withheld information from the endorser (squadron commander) and rater,
creating an inaccurate evaluation of her performance.
In support of her request, applicant submits a personal statement; a copy
of the contested EPR, a copy of the performance feedback worksheet, a
statement from the Aerial Operations Support Flight Commander, supporting
statements from the rater and additional rater, letters of appreciation for
support of PHONENIX SCORPION III, a copy of AF Form 77, Supplemental
Evaluation Sheet, for the period 4 June 2000 through 28 August 2000 and
copies of character reference letters.
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 24 April 1992. She has continually
served on active duty and has been progressively promoted to the grade of
staff sergeant (E-5), effective and with a date of rank of 1 December 1999.
The MilPDS reflects an Air Force Achievement Medal for the period ending
5 December 2001 and an Air Force Commendation Medal for the period ending 1
September 2002.
On 17 April 2002, the Evaluation Reports Appeal Board (ERAB) considered and
denied a similar appeal by the applicant. The following is a resume of his
EPR profile:
PERIOD ENDING PROMOTION RECOMMENDATION
23 Dec 93 (A1C) 5
23 Dec 94 5
23 Dec 95 (SrA) 5
23 Dec 96 5
10 Jun 97 5
10 Jun 98 5
10 Jun 99 4
11 Oct 99 5
*11 Oct 00 (SSgt) 3
20 Apr 01 5
11 Dec 01 5
* Contested report - Rater’s rating downgraded from “4” by the additional
rater (Squadron Commander).
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
AFPC/DPPP reviewed the application and recommends denial. DPPP states that
evaluators who change their evaluations after talking with a superior have
not necessarily been coerced. In order to prove coercion, clear evidence
must exist proving that the individual violated the evaluator’s rating
rights. DPPP states that both the rater and additional rater state they
did not have access to an AF Form 77 for the period ending 28 August 2000
and subsequent AFAM, so their initial assessment is inaccurate. However,
the ERAB determined the AF Form 77 was available to the evaluators at the
time the EPR was written. The applicant has provided performance feedback
worksheets in support of her case. However, there is not necessarily a
direct correlation between information provided during feedback sessions
and the assessments on evaluation reports. DPPP states that it is Air
Force policy that an evaluation report is considered to represent the
rating chain’s best judgment at the time it is rendered. The evidence does
not show the evaluators were coerced or that vital information was withheld
that would have changed their assessment.
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. Should the Board void the contested report, it
would serve no useful purpose to provide her with supplemental
consideration for 02E6 cycle, as she could not be selected based on the
fact that she missed selection by 54.04 points.
The AFPC/DPPPWB evaluation is at Exhibit D.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
On 4 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 the evidence of record
and the applicant’s submission, we are convinced that the EPR for the
period in question should be voided. The supporting documents provided by
the applicant are sufficient to cause doubt concerning the fairness and
accuracy of the contested report. In this respect, we note statements
provided by the applicant’s rater and additional rater explaining the
circumstances surrounding the rating on the EPR. Both the rater and
additional rater unequivocally state that if they had had access to the
Letter of Evaluation and the Air Force Achievement Medal citation at the
time of their evaluation, these documents would have added credence and
influenced their overall rating. In view of this and the circumstances
involved, we recommend that any doubt be resolved in the applicant’s favor
and conclude that the contested report should be declared void and removed
from her records.
_________________________________________________________________
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 12 October 1999 through 11 October 2000
be declared void and removed from her records.
_________________________________________________________________
The following members of the Board considered this application AFBCMR
Docket Number 02-0258 in Executive Session on 19 February 2003 under the
provisions of AFI 36-2603:
Mr. Thomas S. Markiewicz, Vice Chair
Mr. James W. Russell, III, Member
Ms. Kathleen F. Graham, Member
All members voted to correct the records as recommended. The following
documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 7 July 2002, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPPP, dated 13 September 2002.
Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/DPPPWB, dated 18 September 2002.
Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 4 October 2002.
THOMAS S. MARKIEWICZ
Vice Chair
AFBCMR 02-02518
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 xxxxxxxxxxx, be corrected to show that the Enlisted Performance
Report, AF Form 910, rendered for the period 12 October 1999 through 11
October 2000 be, and hereby is, declared void and removed from her records.
JOE G. LINEBERGER
Director
Air Force Review Boards Agency
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...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-01229
The complete evaluation is at Exhibit D. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant states he provided a constructed cause in effect document for consideration to breakdown much of what took place leading up to, and during, the period in question. After reviewing the documentation provided by the applicant and the evidence of record, the Board finds no persuasive evidence showing that the applicant was...
In reference to the applicant contending her rater did not directly supervise her for the number of days indicated on the report (140), Air Force policy, AFI 36-2403, paragraph 4.3.9.2, states that 120 days’ supervision are required before accomplishing an EPR, and only TDY or leave periods of 30 consecutive days or more are deducted from the number of days supervision. Therefore, based on the lack of evidence provided, they recommend denial of applicant’s request. Her EPR was written...
In support of his appeal, applicant provided copies of the contested report, a performance feedback worksheet received during the contested rating period, two prior evaluations and a subsequent evaluation, and a supporting statement from the rater on the contested report. DPPP stated that even though the EPR was written some 11 months after the closeout of the report, nothing is provided by the applicant or the evaluators to demonstrate that the comments contained in the EPR are inaccurate....
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...
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 | CY2005 | BC-2005-00635
On 7 January 2002, after considering her written presentation, her commander found the applicant did commit the alleged offense and imposed punishment of reduction to the grade of airman basic (E-1) with a new date of rank of 2 January 2002 and forfeiture of $200 pay per month for two months, suspended until 1 July 2002, after which time it was remitted without further action. In reference to the applicant’s claim that she was never afforded the opportunity to provide a rebuttal to the...
The applicant contends the rater on the report was not actually his rater when the report closed out. In addition, neither the rater nor the applicant provided evidence as to why the rater signed both the report and the referral letter. The complete evaluation is at Exhibit D. ___________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION The applicant responded to the Air Force evaluation with another statement from his rater at the time of...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-02405
When he received his feedback after this EPR, he was given the justification for the ratings: for not making quota, it was reduced to a 4 and, for not meeting the expectations, it was reduced again to an overall 3 rating. He was able to obtain a different letter of direction given to him in August 1999 and a letter given to him only 19 days after being assigned his first monthly quota. A complete copy of their evaluation is attached at Exhibit...