RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 02-02499 (Case 3)
INDEX CODE: 111.02
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: YES
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
Her Enlisted Performance Report (EPR), rendered for the period
2 September 2000 through 27 July 2001, be declared void and removed
from her records.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
The contested EPR is not a true reflection of her professional ethics
or quality of work on or off duty.
The contested EPR was written as reprisal by her rater due to her
seeking assistance from the Military Equal Opportunity (MEO) office
regarding sexual harassment involving another individual in the unit.
In support of her request, the applicant submits a copy of her 8 July
2002 appeal of her Inspector General (IG) complaint, with additional
documents associated with the issues cited in her contentions, and an
inquiry from her Congressman. The applicant’s complete submission,
with attachments, is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The applicant’s Total Active Federal Military Service Date (TAFMSD) is
9 July 1981. She is currently serving on active duty in the grade of
senior master sergeant (E-8), with an effective date and date of rank
of 1 July 1992.
With the exception of the contested report, all EPRs since 1991
contain “firewall ratings.”
On 27 February 2002, the applicant was advised of the results of her
IG reprisal complaint filed on 21 September 2001. The allegations
that she was reprised against by receiving a referral EPR for making a
protected disclosure with the Military Equal Opportunity office and
that she was unfairly treated by receiving a verbal no contact order
were found to be non-substantiated and her case was dismissed (refer
to Exhibit A).
A similar appeal by the applicant, under Air Force Instruction (AFI)
36-2401, was considered and denied by the Evaluation Report Appeal
Board (ERAB) on 27 November 2001 (refer to Exhibit A).
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
HQ AFPC/DPPPE recommends the application be denied. DPPPE stated that
subsequent to the Evaluation Reports Appeal Board (ERAB) denied her
appeal because she could not prove her conjecture about the rater’s
motives, the applicant filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA)
request to obtain her rater’s memoranda regarding her situation. The
FOIA provided memoranda from the rater, the commander and the
individual the applicant contends harassed her. The memoranda state
the applicant continually tried to contact the individual she contends
was harassing her even after they made it clear to her she was not to
contact the individual. The applicant contends she only tried to
contact the individual to express to him that she wanted his sexual
harassment to stop. Subsequent to her meeting with the MEO office,
the rater provided a punitive feedback to the applicant. The
applicant filed a complaint for Reprisal and Extension of
Whistleblower Protection with the IG on 4 June 2001. The IG
determined a feedback session was not a negative personnel action and
therefore did not constitute reprisal. The applicant then filed an IG
complaint on 13 August 2001 after she had been presented with her
referral EPR. The IG dismissed the complaint because documented
evidence against the complainant supported the 2 EPR rating. The IG
stated that the applicant’s own complaint indicated she was the sexual
aggressor. The IG did state that the situation was handled poorly.
Based on this recommendation, the commander upgraded the report from a
referral “2” rating to a non-referral “4” rating. Although the
commander supports voiding the report, he does state, “I stand by my
comments on the EPR….”
DPPPE stated that the applicant did not provide convincing evidence
that she was reprised against for submitting an MEO complaint against
her rater. The allegation of reprisal was thoroughly investigated by
the local IG and was unsubstantiated. This application provides no
new evidence to refute the IG’s finding. A complete copy of this
evaluation is appended at Exhibit C.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
The applicant reviewed the advisory opinion and indicated that the
investigating official of the IG report of allegation of reprisal and
extension of Whistleblower Protection under 10 U.S.C. 1034 made the
following statement: “We reviewed SMSgt Collet’s UPRG and PIF. She
has an outstanding service record and there was no negative
information in her PIF.” If her behavior would have been of a nature
to warrant a referral EPR and be identified as a “sexual aggressor,”
one would believe her PIF (Personal Information File) would have
contained control roster information, letters of reprimands and/or
letters of counseling. In support of her request, the applicant
submits copies of e-mails concerning her pending IG complaint appeal.
The applicant’s complete copy submission, with attachments, 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 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 applicant’s
allegations of reprisal and unfair treatment were found to be
nonsubstantiated and the local IG office dismissed her case.
Following approval by the Secretary of the Air Force Inquiries
Division (SAF/IGQ) and the Department of Defense Special Inquiries,
the applicant’s case was closed. The applicant has not presented
convincing evidence substantiating her allegations that the report was
a biased, retaliatory, or inaccurate assessment of her performance
during the pertinent rating period. We note that the additional rater
used his discretionary authority to disagree with the rater. It
appears that the applicant was rated properly based on the evaluators’
perception of her performance at that point in time. Other than the
applicant’s unsubstantiated allegations, we find no evidence to
indicate reprisal or unfair treatment on the part of her superiors.
We believe the applicant has failed to provide sufficient evidence to
substantiate that she has been the victim of an error or injustice.
We find no compelling basis to recommend granting the relief sought in
this application.
4. The applicant's case is adequately documented and it has not been
shown that a personal appearance with or without counsel will
materially add to our understanding of the issues involved.
Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorably considered.
_________________________________________________________________
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 13 February 2003, under the provisions of AFI 36-
2603:
Mr. Philip Sheuerman, Panel Chair
Ms. Cheryl Jacobson, Member
Mr. David W. Mulgrew, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered in connection with
AFBCMR Docket Number 02-02499.
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 2 August 2002, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPPE, dated 27 September 2002.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 4 October 2002.
Exhibit E. Letter from Applicant, dated 22 October 2002,
w/atchs.
PHILIP SHEUERMAN
Panel Chair
A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit K. The Chief, Evaluation Programs Branch, AFPC/DPPPE, reviewed this application and states that although the applicant has provided support from the senior rater, she provide no support from the MLR president to warrant upgrading the PRF. After reviewing the evidence of record and noting the applicant’s contentions, the majority of the Board is not persuaded that the applicant’s records are either in error or unjust. The...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-03828
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 02-03828 INDEX CODE: 111.02 APPLICANT COUNSEL: None SSN HEARING DESIRED: Yes _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) rendered for the period 26 July 2000 through 11 June 2001 and all accompanying attachments be declared void and he be considered for promotion by a special selection board (SSB). ...
AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-01393
The applicant’s complete response w/attachments, is at Exhibit F. ________________________________________________________________ disagrees with 5 of the Air Force offices of THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT: 1. The applicant’s contentions that her contested EPR does not accurately reflect a true account of her performance and enforcement of standards, that her rater gave her deceptive feedback, and that a rating markdown in Section III, block 2, of the EPR was in reprisal for her involvement in...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-03385
_________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: The contested OPR included a statement from a former supervisor who manipulated a former employee to file a sexual harassment complaint in order to discredit him. The rating chain and commander determined that it was appropriate to mention this within his 10 May 2001 OPR. AFPC/DPPPO complete evaluation is at Exhibit D. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S...
His referral Officer Performance Report (OPR) rendered for the period 6 Jul 99 through 3 Nov 99 be removed from his records. The primary argument to delete the referral OPR is detailed in his rebuttal to the OPR and in his IG complaint. The DPPPE evaluation is at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Applicant responded and states that he never disputed that he made mistakes.
AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2011-04279
DPSID states the applicant did not file an appeal through the Evaluation Reports Appeal Board’s (ERAB) under the provisions of AFI 36-240l, Correcting Officer and Enlisted Evaluation Reports. DPSID states, that in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, the rater did follow all applicable policies and procedures in the preparation and completion of the contested evaluation. It appears the report was accomplished in direct accordance with applicable Air 4 Force instructions.
AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-00720
In support of his request, the applicant provides a personal statement, excerpts from his medical records, letters of support, and other documentation associated with his request. The following is a resume of his EPR ratings, commencing with the report closing 26 Oct 07: RATING PERIOD PROMOTION RECOMMENDATION 26 Oct 07 5 20 Dec 06 5 20 Jun 06 4 * 13 Oct 05 2 13 Oct 04 5 * Contested Report Under separate cover, the applicant requested assistance from Senator Murray on 19 Jan 11 in support of...
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 99-03256 INDEX CODE 110.02 106.00 XXXXXXXX COUNSEL: None XXXXXXXX HEARING DESIRED: Yes _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her 1995 general discharge be upgraded to honorable and the narrative reason of “Misconduct” be changed to “Convenience of the...
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 | CY2004 | BC-2004-00055
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2004-00055 INDEX CODE: 111.02 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His Referral Enlisted Performance Report (EPR), rendered for the period 6 April 2001 through 21 December 2001, is declared void and removed from his records. The HQ AFPC/DPPPE evaluation is at Exhibit C. HQ AFPC/DPPPWB states...