RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 02-02758
INDEX CODE: 111.05
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) for the period 6 Sep 00 through
1 Jul 01 be voided and removed from his record.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
The comments in Block VI (Additional Rater’s Comments) are not
commensurate to the final rating; he was not at fault or responsible
for said programs. There is an element of prejudice evidenced by an
earlier email distributed base wide by his additional rater and
illegal punishment; there was evidence of miscommunication between two
other pertinent parties.
In support of his appeal, applicant has provided a copy of the
contested report and his appeal package to the Evaluation Reports
Appeal Board (ERAB). His complete submission is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The applicant’s total active federal military service date (TAFMSD) is
16 November 1982. The Personnel Data System reflects that his date of
separation was 30 November 2002, with retirement effective 1 December
2002. He was serving in the grade of technical sergeant (TSgt - E6)
at retirement. A profile of his last ten EPR’s follows:
Closeout Date Overall Rating
04 Aug 94 5
30 Apr 95 3
17 Mar 96 5
05 Sep 96 4 (Rater)
5 (Indorser)
05 Sep 97 5
05 Sep 98 5
05 Sep 99 5
05 Sep 00 5
*01 Jul 01 5 (Rater)
4 (Add’l Rater) (Ref)
01 Jul 02 5
* Contested report.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
HQ AFPC/DPPPE recommends denial citing AFI 36-2406. DPPPE states that
the applicant’s rating chain documented this dispute appropriately.
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 C.)
HQ AFPC/DPPPWB deferred to DPPPE’s evaluation and recommended denial.
The contested report rendered the applicant ineligible for promotion
consideration to master sergeant (E7) for cycle 02E7. Should the
Board remove the contested EPR, the applicant would be entitled to
supplemental consideration for cycle 02E7.
(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. 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 warranting voidance of the contested
report. After reviewing the available evidence, we are of the opinion
that the contested report contains enough contradictory information
with respect to the additional rater’s comments and markings that some
doubt exists as to the accuracy and fairness of the contested report
and that any doubt should be resolved in the applicant’s favor by
removing the contested report from his records. Accordingly, we
recommend that the applicant’s records be corrected as indicated
below.
______________________________________________________________
2
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT:
The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force
relating to APPLICANT be corrected to show that the AF Form 910,
Enlisted Performance Report, rendered for the period 6 September 2000
through 1 July 2001, be declared void and removed from his records.
______________________________________________________________
The following members of the Board considered this application in
Executive Session on 30 January 2003, under the provisions of AFI 36-
2603:
Mr. Edward C. Koenig, III, Panel Chair
Ms. Martha Maust, Member
Mr. John E. Pettit, Member
All members voted to correct the records, as recommended. The
following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dtd 26 Aug 02, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPPE, dtd 22 Oct 02.
Exhibit D. Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPPWB, dtd 25 Oct 02
Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dtd 8 Nov 02.
EDWARD C. KOENIG, III
Panel Chair
3
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-00823
Should the Board void the report as requested, providing he is otherwise eligible, the applicant’s promotion to E-7 could be reinstated, with an effective date and date of rank of 1 Apr 03. The HQ AFPC/DPPPWB evaluation is at Exhibit D. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS: Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to applicant on 2 May 03 for review and response. We have noted the documents provided with the...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-00772
In support of his request, the applicant submits a copy of the Evaluation Reports Appeal Board (ERAB) denial letter dated 10 January 2003, a copy of the contested EPR, a copy of the referral EPR notification, a copy of supporting statements from his raters and additional rater, a copy of his TDY voucher, and his letter concerning his former commander. The applicant submitted an appeal to the Evaluation Reports Appeal Board (ERAB) in December 2002 requesting his EPR for the period 12 May...
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...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-01811
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2003-01811 INDEX CODE: 111.00 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: The Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) rendered for the period 6 October 1999 through 5 October 2000 be declared void and removed from his records and he be provided supplemental consideration for promotion to the grade of master...
AF | BCMR | CY2002 | BC-2002-01683
In support of the applicant's appeal, he submits a copy of the contested EPR, AF Form 948, Application For Correction/Removal of Evaluation Reports, a statement from his rater, and the ERAB report. It would be necessary for the applicant to provide a corrected EPR with his application to the ERAB. The AFPC/DPPPWB evaluation is attached at Exhibit D. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant reviewed the...
Too much emphasis was placed on a Letter of Admonition (LOA); there was bias by the additional rater; and, the number of days of supervision is incorrect. The HQ AFPC/DPPPEP evaluation is at Exhibit C. HQ AFPC/DPPPWB stated that the first time the contested report was considered in the promotion process was Cycle 01E7 to master sergeant (E-7), promotions effective Aug 01 - Jul 02. However, they do not, in the Board majority’s opinion, support a finding that the evaluators were unable to...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-00432
In support of her appeal, applicant submitted a personal statement, dated 31 Jan 03; a copy of her statement to the ERAB, dated 14 Jan 02; a copy of an MFR from her former element chief, dated 3 Aug 01; a copy of her EPR closing 16 Oct 01 and an AF Form 931, Performance Feedback Worksheet (AB thru TSgt), dated 5 Jul 01. Air Force policy states it is the rating chain’s responsibility to “assess and document what the ratee did, how well he or she did it, and the ratee’s potential based on...
The applicant’s board score for the 99E8 board was 397.50. The applicant did provide a letter of recommendation from the commander supporting the upgrading of the EPR ratings and changes to his original comments. It is unreasonable to conclude the commander now, over 10 years later, has a better understanding of the applicant’s duty performance for that time period.
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 | CY2004 | BC-2003-04004
A complete copy of their evaluation is attached at Exhibit D. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR STAFF EVALUATION: The applicant reviewed the Air Force evaluation and states his package contained information showing that favoritism and racism were prevalent in his squadron. While the majority notes the applicant indicates two of his rating chain members was allegedly charged and convicted of racial discrimination, he has not provided...