Search Decisions

Decision Text

AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-01795
Original file (BC-2002-01795.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

                       RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2002-01795
            INDEX NUMBER:  111.02
      XXXXXXXXXXXX     COUNSEL:  None

      XXX-XX-XXXX      HEARING DESIRED:  No

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

The enlisted performance report (EPR) rendered on him for  the  period
19 Jan 98 to 11 Oct 99 be revised to reflect ratings to the far  right
in  all  performance  factors  under  Section  III,   “Evaluation   of
Performance” and in Section IV, “Promotion Recommendation” or, in  the
alternative, the report be voided and removed from his record.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The contested EPR is the lowest rated duty performance he has received
in 28 years of total military service.

He received conflicting accounts from  his  immediate  rater  and  his
rater’s rater as to why he received the poor rating.

The rating on his EPR conflicts with the overall excellent  rating  he
received on his civilian appraisal.

He was never counseled by anyone in his rating chain for  unacceptable
performance.

In support of his appeal the applicant  has  provided  copies  of  his
military record of performance and a copy of his civilian  performance
appraisal covering the same period.

The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is  at  Exhibit
A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

According to information provided by HQ ARPC, the  Evaluation  Reports
Appeal Board  (ERAB)  reviewed  the  applicant’s  appeal  package  and
determined that his  requests  should  be  denied.   Based  on  copies
submitted by the  applicant,  a  resume  of  his  performance  reports
follows:

      Closeout Date                     Overall Rating

        6 Feb 85                        9 (APR system)
        6 Feb 86                        9
        3 Jan 87                        9
       22 Oct 88                        9
       27 Feb 90                        5 (EPR system)
       18 Jan 98                        5
      *11 Oct 99                        3
       11 Oct 01                        5

*  Contested Report

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

HQ ARPC/DPBR2 recommends denial of the applicant’s requests.  The ERAB
considered and denied a request to remove the contested EPR  from  the
applicant’s  records.   The  applicant  failed   to   provide   enough
documentation  substantiating  his  allegations  in  accordance   with
required directives.

The complete evaluation is at Exhibit C.

HQ  ARPC/DPB  recommends  denial  of  the  applicant’s  request.   The
applicant has not exhausted administrative avenues available  to  him.
As a courtesy, they submitted the applicant’s package to the ERAB  for
their consideration.  Regarding the  applicant’s  assertion  that  his
reports written before and after  the  contested  report  were  marked
higher, they indicate that  each  reporting  period  is  separate  and
unique and that any report  rendered  before  or  after  a  particular
report has no bearing on that  report.   They  also  indicate  that  a
member’s civilian rating carries no weight when  evaluated  for  their
military job.

The complete evaluation is at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on
4 Jun 03 for review and comment within 30 days.  To date,  a  response
has not been received.

_________________________________________________________________

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.  We took notice of
the applicant's complete submission in judging the  merits  of  the
case; however, a majority of the Board agrees with the opinions and
recommendations of the Air Force offices of primary  responsibility
and adopts their rationale as the basis for their  conclusion  that
the applicant has not been the victim of  an  error  or  injustice.
Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary,  a  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 Docket Number BC-2002-
01795 in Executive Session on 16 July 2003, under the provisions of
AFI 36-2603:

      Mr. Michael K. Gallogly, Panel Chair
      Mr. John B. Hennessey, Member
      Ms. Barbara J. White-Olson, Member

By a majority vote, the Board voted to  deny  applicant’s  request.
Mr. Gallogly voted to grant the applicant’s  request  but  did  not
desire to submit a  minority  report.   The  following  documentary
evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 28 May 02, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Memorandum, ARPC/DPBR2, dated 29 May 03.
    Exhibit D.  Memorandum, ARPC/DPB, dated 2 Jun 03.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 4 Jun 03.




                                   MICHAEL K. GALLOGLY
                                   Panel Chair


MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, AIR FORCE BOARD
                                  FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
(AFBCMR)

SUBJECT:  AFBCMR Application of XXXXXXXXXXX, XXX-XX-XXXX

      I have carefully reviewed the evidence of record and the
recommendation of the Board members.  A majority found that applicant
had not provided sufficient evidence of error or injustice and
recommended the case be denied.  I concur with that finding and their
conclusion that relief is not warranted.  Accordingly, I accept their
recommendation that the application be denied.

      Please advise the applicant accordingly.




                                        JOE G. LINEBERGER
                                        Director
                                        Air Force Review Boards Agency

Similar Decisions

  • AF | BCMR | CY2008 | BC-2007-01900

    Original file (BC-2007-01900.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: The report does not reflect his efforts or accomplishments during the rating period. The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application, extracted from the applicant’s military records, are contained in the letter prepared by the appropriate office of the Air Force at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: HQ ARPC/DPB recommends...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2002 | 0201041

    Original file (0201041.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    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...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-01623

    Original file (BC-2003-01623.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    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 | CY2005 | BC-2005-02202

    Original file (BC-2005-02202.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    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...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-03068

    Original file (BC-2005-03068.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    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-2005-01693

    Original file (BC-2005-01693.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    For airmen who meet eligibility requirements, the immediate supervisor recommends promotion on AF Form 224, Recommendation and Authorization for Promotion of Airman as Reserve of the Air Force. According to the 7 Apr 04 report, MSgt C was the rater and Chief A was the additional rater. A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: He should have received an initial and...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2010 | BC-2010-00237

    Original file (BC-2010-00237.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: He received an unfair and unjust rating without any documentation and there was no feedback during or before 4 Feb 07 through 3 Feb 08. The Evaluations Reports Appeals Board (ERAB) denied his appeal of the contested report. We took notice of the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of the case; however, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of the Air Force office of primary...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2003 | 0201834

    Original file (0201834.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    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. Exhibit F. Letter, Addendum to Report of...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-00791

    Original file (BC-2004-00791.DOC) Auto-classification: Denied

    _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: His Promotion Recommendation Form (PRF) did not reach the Selection Board Secretariat in time to be considered for promotion by the U0405A board. The applicant provided a letter from his senior rater dated 2 Feb 04 explaining why the PRF was prepared and submitted late. We find no evidence of an error in this case and after a thorough review of the applicant’s submission, we do not believe he has...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-01263

    Original file (BC-2005-01263.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2005-01263 INDEX CODE: 131.01 XXXXXXX COUNSEL: NONE XXXXXXX HEARING DESIRED: NO MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 16 OCT 2006 ___________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: He be considered for promotion to the grade of colonel by a special selection board (SSB) for the FY05 Colonel Line and NonLine Promotion Board with his Officer...