RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 02-02928
INDEX CODE: 111.02
HEARING DESIRED: NO
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
The Enlisted Performance Report (EPR), rendered for the period 11 July 2000
through 10 March 2002, be declared void and replaced with the revised EPR
rendered for this same period.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
The rater and additional rater entered incorrect ratings in Section III and
submitted an AF 948, Application for Correction/Removal of Evaluation
Reports.
In support of his application, the applicant submits a copy of the EPR in
question along with the revised EPR, a supportive statement from his rater
and additional rater and a copy of the Evaluation Reports Appeal Board
(ERAB) decision. The applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
Information extracted from the Personnel Data System indicates that the
applicant entered on active duty on 11 July 2000, and is currently serving
in the grade of Airman First Class (E-3), with a date of rank of 11 January
2001. Applicant has no previous EPRs on file.
A similar appeal by the applicant was considered and denied on 25 July 2002
by the ERAB.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
AFPC/DPPPE reviewed the application and recommends denial. DPPPE states
that the applicant has not provided any supporting documentation to support
his contention that the rating chain turned in a completed EPR with
incorrect ratings. The only evidence provided is that the rating chain
later engaged in conversation that prompted them to request a change to the
applicant’s EPR. The rating chain failed to provide documentation that a
report was submitted with incorrect ratings. The DPPPE evaluation is at
Exhibit C.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 11
October 2002 for review and comment. As of this date, this office has
received no response.
_________________________________________________________________
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, the Board majority is not persuaded that the contested report is
erroneous or unjust. In the rating process, each evaluator is required to
assess a ratee’s performance, honestly and to the best of their ability.
While the rater and additional rater are now apparently of the opinion that
the applicant’s ratings should be upgraded, neither individual offers any
specific information concerning the applicant’s performance that was
unknown to them at the time the report was prepared. The Board majority
therefore finds that their statements are nothing more than retrospective
judgments of the applicant’s performance and do not provide an appropriate
basis for removal of the contested report and substitution of the
reaccomplished report. In view of this, the majority of the Board agrees
with the opinion and recommendation of the Air Force and adopts their
rationale as the basis for their conclusion that the applicant has not been
the victim of an error or injustice. Therefore, the majority of the Board
finds no compelling basis to recommend granting the relief sought in this
application.
_________________________________________________________________
RECOMMENDATION OF THE BOARD:
A majority of the Board finds insufficient evidence of error or injustice
and recommends the application be denied.
_________________________________________________________________
The following members of the Board considered this application, AFBCMR
Docket No. 02-02928 in Executive Session on 8 January 2003, under the
provisions of AFI 36-2603:
Mr. Robert S. Boyd, Panel Chair
Mr. James W. Russell, III, Member
Mr. William H. Anderson, Member
By a majority vote, the Board recommended denial of the application. Mr.
Anderson voted to correct the record but did not wish to submit a minority
report. The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 4 Sep 02 w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant’s Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPPPE, dated 4 Oct 02.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 11 Oct 02.
ROBERT S. BOYD
Panel Chair
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 | 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 | CY2004 | BC-2003-02881
He is currently serving on active duty in the grade of lieutenant colonel, with an effective date and date of rank of 1 February 2002, having been selected for promotion to that grade by the CY00A selection board. In view of the statements provided by the evaluators of the contested report, and having no basis to question their integrity, we conclude that the applicant’s records should be corrected to substitute the reaccomplished OPR, closing 26 May 1999, for the one currently in his...
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-2002-03566
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...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-03461
Other than his own assertions, there is no indication in the record before us that that the rater did not have reasonable information available concerning the applicant’s performance during the contested rating period on which to base a reasonably accurate assessment. Additionally, we note that the rater on the contested report was in the applicant’s rating chain on the preceding report which, in our view, supports the position that the rater was familiar with the applicant and was aware of...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-03726
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 02-03726 INDEX NUMBER: 131.00 XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX COUNSEL: None XXX-XX-XXXX HEARING DESIRED: No _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: In two separate applications, applicant makes the following requests: The Duty Title on his Officer Performance Report (OPR) rendered for the period 30 Jul 98 through 1 Apr 99 be corrected to reflect...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-00839
The applicant appealed the contested report under the provisions of AFI 36-2401, Correcting Officer and Enlisted Evaluations Reports. The first time he was considered was in cycle 01E5. He was considered again for promotion in cycle 02E5.
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-00197
He provides three supporting statements from others as well as an email from the rater advising he would contact the additional rater about changing the rating of the contested EPR. In any event, we conclude that the contested EPR is not an accurate assessment of the applicant’s performance for the rating period in question and, to preclude any possibility of an injustice, recommend it be removed from his records. According to HQ AFPC/DPPPWB, the applicant was selected for technical...