RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBERS: BC-2002-03408
INDEX CODE 111.02 111.04
COUNSEL: None
HEARING DESIRED: No
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
The closing date for the Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) for the
period 1 Nov 00 through 26 Jan 02 be changed to 31 Oct 02.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
The previous EPR establishes that the inclusive date should reflect
that of an annual EPR. His complete submission, with attachments, is
at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The applicant is currently serving on extended active duty in the
grade of master sergeant at Tinker AFB, OK, as an inspection section
dock chief. His last five EPRs reflect the following:
CLOSING DATE RATING REASON FOR REPORT
29 Apr 97 5 Annual (365 days)
29 Apr 98 5 Annual (365 days)
29 Apr 00 5 Annual (366 days)
31 Oct 00 5 Change of Reporting Official
(185 days)
26 Jan 02 5 Annual (120 days)
The applicant did not submit an appeal to the Evaluation Reports
Appeal Board (ERAB).
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
HQ AFPC/DPPPE advises that, in accordance with AFI 36-2406, if the
ratee is a senior airman or above and has not had a report for at
least one year and the period of supervision has been at least 120
days, the reason for the report is annual. The closeout date is one
year from the previous EPR’s closeout date or when 120 calendar days
of supervision have passed. The report reason is still annual. The
number of days of supervision on the contested EPR is 120. The
applicant did not have a minimum of 120 calendar days of supervision
on the normal annual date (31 Oct 01); therefore, the closeout date
had to be adjusted to closeout on the day the applicant met that
minimum (26 Jan 02).
A complete copy of the 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 15 Nov 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.
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 the applicant’s submission, we are not
persuaded that the closing date of the 31 Oct 02 EPR should be
changed. The applicant’s contentions are duly noted; however, we do
not find these assertions, in and by themselves, sufficiently
persuasive to override the rationale provided by the Air Force. The
closing date had to be adjusted because the applicant apparently did
not have a minimum of 120 calendar days of supervision on the normal
annual date. The applicant has not established that the closing date
is inaccurate. We therefore adopt the rationale expressed as the basis
for our decision that the applicant has failed to sustain his burden
of having suffered either an error or an injustice. In view of the
above and absent persuasive evidence to the contrary, we conclude this
appeal should be denied.
_________________________________________________________________
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 17 April 2003 under the provisions of AFI 36-
2603:
Mr. Albert F. Lowas, Jr., Panel Chair
Mr. Robert H. Altman, Member
Ms. Jean A. Reynolds, Member
The following documentary evidence relating to AFBCMR Docket No. BC-
2002-03408 was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 13 Sep 02, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPPE, dated 7 Nov 02.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 15 Nov 02.
ALBERT F. LOWAS, JR.
Panel Chair
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 | CY2005 | BC-2005-00334
_________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: He should have had an EPR prepared on him for the period 4 Oct 02 through 6 Mar 03, but did not because an erroneous change of reporting official was processed in the personnel system and precluded his reporting official from writing the report. In support of his appeal, applicant provides a letter from his rater during the contested period, a letter from his current section commander, and the EPR he...
AF | BCMR | CY2002 | BC-2001-02883
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 01-02883 INDEX CODE: 111.01, 131.01 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: The Professional Military Education (PME) recommendations on his Officer Performance Reports (OPRs), closing 19 Mar 94 and 25 Nov 94, be changed from Intermediate Service School (ISS) to Senior Service School (SSS). The...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-01974
Further, it was improper for the rater to document the alleged misconduct since he was not the applicant’s supervisor during the period it occurred and also did not have 60 days of supervision as required for referral reports. An annual report was rendered on 30 Jan 02, as required, and the LOR was documented in the EPR by the rater in the new unit (causing the report to be referred). Applicant’s counsel states “unfavorable information should perhaps not been included in any report …”...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC-2013-01902
b. AFPC/DPSIDs advisory opinion states The applicant believes that after subtraction of his TDY to the NCO Academy and the time he was loaned out to another section, the rater on the contested evaluation did not obtain the minimum required supervision of 120 days. In his original application, there is substantial evidence that shows the Chief did not have enough days of supervision to close out a report on him. The Chief sent an email to him on 21 Sep 09 stating he was assigned as his...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-00472
The DPPPO evaluation is at Exhibit D. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Counsel reiterated the applicant's contentions, provided a summary of the applicant's career and states in order for a performance report to serve its intended purpose it must correctly reflect a member's performance history. The content of an OPR based on an administrative error, that does not accurately reflect the time period during which the...
Applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A. A complete copy of the DPPPAB evaluation is at Exhibit D. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Applicant indicated that he is providing all the applicable documents concerning his request to have the contested report corrected. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: The pertinent military records of the Department of...
AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC 2012 05708
On 23 Mar 2010, the applicant failed his FA with a score of 72.00. The applicant has failed to provide any information from all the rating officials on the contested report. The complete DPSID evaluation is at Exhibit C. _______________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The EPR did not include his performance for the entire rating period.
The applicant has provided a memorandum from AFMOA/SGZC informing applicant that the Commander, Air Force Medical Operations Agency, reviewed his appeal of the 60 MDW/CC restrictions of his clinical privileges. The AFPC/DPPPE 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 5 Apr 02, for review and comment. Exhibit D. Letter,...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-01543
His referral Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) closing 30 Jan 03, be removed from his records. We note that regardless of his commander's action, the court-martial conviction and referral EPR rendered him ineligible for promotion. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating to APPLICANT be corrected to show that the close-out date of his AF Form 910, Enlisted...