RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 02-02727
INDEX CODE: 111.05
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) rendered for the period 29 Jun 01
through 10 Feb 02, be removed from his records.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
The EPR is extremely prejudicial to his military career and future
promotion considerations. The rater and endorser of the EPR are the same
individuals that were responsible for the investigation and subsequent
conviction in the Article 15 proceedings that were mentioned in the EPR.
The EPR ratings are dramatically lower than what he believes to be fair
given that the EPR is supposed to be a reflection of his duty performance
for the entire period, not the alleged events of one day.
In support of his request, applicant provided a copy of his 10 Feb 02 EPR,
with attachments; and documentation pertaining to his misuse of government
computer investigation. His complete submission, with attachments is at
Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
Applicant contracted his initial enlistment in the Regular Air Force on 18
Oct 85. He has been progressively promoted to the grade of technical
sergeant, having assumed that grade effective and with a date of rank of 1
Nov 00.
The following is a resume of his recent EPR ratings:
PERIOD ENDING PROMOTION RECOMMENDATION
10 Feb 02* 2
28 Jun 01 5
28 Jun 00 5
22 Jul 99 5
02 Nov 98 5
* - Contested Report
On 30 Jan 02, the applicant was notified by his commander of his intent to
impose nonjudicial punishment under Article 15 of the Uniformed Code of
Military Justice (UCMJ) for wrongfully using a government computer to
store, process, display, send, or otherwise transmit offensive or obscene
material. He was advised of his rights in this matter and acknowledged
receipt of the notification on 6 Feb 02. After consulting counsel, the
applicant waived his right to demand trial by court-martial, accepted
Article 15 proceedings, and provided a written and oral presentation to his
commander. On 11 Feb 02, after consideration of all the facts, his wing
commander determined that he committed the offense alleged and imposed
punishment on the applicant. He received a suspended reduction to the
grade of staff sergeant, ordered to forfeit $200 pay per month for 2
months, ordered to perform 30 days extra duty, and reprimanded. The
applicant appealed his punishment to the ACC CG/CC. His appeal was denied.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
AFPC/DPPPEP reviewed applicant's request and recommends denial. DPPPEP
states that although the applicant may feel the evaluators over stressed
the incident, the evaluators were obliged to consider the incident, its
significance, and the frequency with which it occurred when assessing
performance and potential. The allegations made on the Article 15, and the
Article 15 itself, were clearly considered when assessing the applicant's
performance and potential. It is strongly encouraged in AFI 36-2406 to
consider and comment on these types of incidents on performance reports.
The EPR should be voided only if the Article 15 were to be set aside.
The DPPPEP 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 Oct
02 for review and comment within 30 days. 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.
2. The application was not timely filed; however, it is in the interest of
justice to excuse the failure to timely file.
3. Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the
existence of error or injustice. Applicant contends that undue emphasis on
an isolated incident tainted his supervisors' perception of his
performance, which resulted in an unfairly written performance report. His
contentions are duly noted; however, we do not find his assertions, in and
by themselves, sufficiently persuasive to override the evidence of record
and the rationale provided by the Air Force. Evidence has not been
presented which would lead us to believe the contested report is not a true
and accurate assessment of his overall performance and demonstrated
potential for promotion during the specified time period. Accordingly, we
agree with the opinion and recommendation of the Air Force office of
primary responsibility and adopt their rationale as the basis for our
conclusion that he has neo been the victim of an error or injustice. In
the absence of persuasive evidence to the contrary, we find no compelling
basis 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 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 Docket Number 02-02727 in
Executive Session on 29 Jan 03, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:
Mr. Philip Sheuerman, Panel Chair
Mr. Joseph A. Roj, Member
Ms. Martha Evans, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 15 Aug 02, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPPPEP, dated 4 Oct 02.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 11 Oct 02.
PHILIP SHEUERMAN
Panel Chair
DPPPEP stated that, during the contested reporting period, the applicant received a Letter of Counseling (LOC), dated 30 Dec 99, and a Letter of Reprimand (LOR), dated 22 Jun 00, for “isolated incidents.” DPPPEP referenced the decision of the Evaluation Reports Appeal Board (ERAB), which states that “Evaluators are obligated to consider incidences, their frequency, and periods of substandard performance.” DPPPEP stated that the additional rater’s comments in Section VI of the...
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 01-01882 INDEX CODE: 111.02 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: The Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) rendered for the period 25 Mar 99 through 24 Mar 00 be declared void and removed from her records. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Chief,...
_________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: The applicant makes no contentions on his application; however, he provided letters of support from the rater and additional rater of the report in question. Should the Board replace the report as requested (with the upgrade of the overall rating of “5”), providing he is otherwise eligible, the applicant will be entitled to supplemental promotion consideration beginning with cycle 01E5. A complete...
On 10 Apr 01, the applicant’s squadron commander notified him that he was recommending his discharge from the Air Force for a mental disorder. Based on documentation in the applicant’s file and the narrative reason for his separation, “Personality Disorder” they recommend that the applicant’s RE code be changed to 2C, “Involuntarily separated with an honorable discharge; or entry level separation without characterization of service.” The complete evaluation is at Exhibit...
AF | BCMR | CY2002 | BC-2002-01904
_________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPPPEP states that the applicant’s request is vague because he does not specify exactly which report he is contesting. A complete copy of the evaluation is attached at Exhibit C. AFPC/DPPPWB states that due to the applicant’s new date of rank to A1C of 9 January 1995, he was promoted to Senior Airman (SrA) on 5 September 1996 (20 months time-in-grade). We took notice of the applicant's complete...
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 02-01667 INDEX CODE: 111.02 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His Enlisted Performance Report (EPR), rendered for the period 2 Feb 97 through 1 Feb 98, be replaced with the reaccomplished EPR provided; and, that he be provided supplemental promotion consideration to the grade of senior master...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-03771
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2003-03771 INDEX CODE: 111.02 XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX COUNSEL: NONE XXXXXXXXXXXX HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) rendered for the period of 3 June 1999 through 30 January 2000 be removed from his records and he receive supplemental promotion consideration. On 22 February...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-01175
On 23 August 2004, she was provided a copy of her 1 July 2004 EPR from the military personnel flight (MPF). AFPC/DPPPEP complete evaluation is at Exhibit C. ___________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 1 June 2005, for review and response within 30 days. We are not convinced by the evidence she provided in support of her appeal, that the contested...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-02322
The first time the contested report will be considered in the promotion process is cycle 07E7 to master sergeant. 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 22 Sep 06, for review and comment within 30 days. After reviewing the documentation provided by the applicant and the evidence of record, the Board finds no...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-01862
_________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: His rater did not provide mid-term performance feedback on 1 March 2006 as indicated on the report, nor was verbal feedback provided from the endorsers. We note the applicant’s assertion that his chain of command did not provide written or verbal performance feedback; however, we also note the comments provided by the Air Force office of primary responsibility that although Air Force policy does...