RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2003-00373
INDEX CODE: 111.02
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) rendered for the period 2 Dec 99
through 1 Dec 00, be declared void and removed from his records.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
The report is biased and based entirely on an isolated incident. The
initial report was generated as a command-directed report with a closeout
date of 26 Sep 00 as a result of nonjudicial punishment he was receiving.
He was served the referral report notice on 20 Dec 00 and submitted his
response on 3 Jan 01. In February 2001, he received an altered version of
the report signed on 5 Feb 01 with a changed closeout date of 1 Dec 00.
The EPR was also changed from a command-directed report to an annual
report. AFI 36-3406, paragraph 3.9.2., states "...if after a referral, a
subsequent evaluator upgrades the rating and/or invalidates the referral
comments, the nonconcur block is marked and comments are made in support of
the disagreement in the ratings of comments. The report is no longer
considered referral; however, retain original referral correspondence with
the report. This was not done." Although the Air Force states that a
report is a working document, it also states that if a change is made after
being served, the ratee must be given an additional ten days to respond and
comments provided be attached to the report. The Evaluation Reports
Appeals Board (ERAB) returned his first appeal requesting additional
support for his case. His second appeal was denied indicating that the
support he provided was insufficient.
During the particular time period, his unit had four court-martials going
on for sexual misconduct. Applicant believes that because of this, it did
not look good for him to have any accusations going on at the time and that
the letter of reprimand he received for not portraying a positive image
should have been enough.
In support of his request, applicant provided documentation associated with
his ERAB appeal. His complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit
A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
Data extracted from the personnel data system reflects that the applicant
contracted his initial enlistment in the Regular Air Force on 28 Jul 88 and
has been progressively promoted to the grade of staff sergeant, having
assumed that grade effective and with a date of rank of 1 Jan 97.
On 28 Sep 00, the applicant was notified by his commander of his intent to
recommend nonjudicial punishment under Article 15 of the UCMJ for engaging
in an unprofessional relationship with a female while married to someone
other than that female. He was advised of his rights in this matter and
acknowledged receipt of the notification on 10 Oct 00. 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 Oct 00, after consideration of all
the facts, his commander determined that he committed one or more of the
offenses alleged and imposed punishment on the applicant. He received a
suspended reduction to the grade of senior airman and was reprimanded. The
applicant did not appeal his punishment.
The following is a resume of the applicant's recent EPR profile:
PERIOD ENDING PROMOTION RECOMMENDATION
31 Dec 02 5
30 Nov 01 5
01 Dec 00* 3
01 Dec 99 5
17 Jul 99 5
17 Jul 98 4
10 Nov 97 4
10 Nov 96 4
* - Contested Report
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
AFPC/DPPPE recommends denial. DPPPE states that in accordance with AFI 36-
2406, EPRs become a matter of record when the original is filed in the Unit
Personnel Record Group (UPRG). Evaluation reports are work copies and
evaluators may correct or redo them until the reports become a matter of
record. Furthermore, Table 3.2., states "Evaluators should discuss
disagreements when preparing reports. Prior evaluators are first given an
opportunity to change the evaluation; however, they will not change their
evaluation just to satisfy the evaluator who disagrees." In the
applicant's case the additional rater disagreed with the rater and chose to
discuss his disagreement with the rater. The rater then chose to rewrite
the EPR as a non-referral. It is the rating chain's responsibility to
assess and document what the ratee did, how well he did it, and the ratee's
potential based on that performance. The performance is recorded on the
EPR, along with a valid and realistic recommendation for promotion. There
were no errors cited in this EPR. The applicant has failed to prove that
the documented performance on his contested EPR was inaccurate. The DPPPE
evaluation is at Exhibit C.
AFPC/DPPPWB recommends denial. DPPPWB states that the referral report in
question was actually a working copy that closed out 26 Sep 00, but never
made it to his records. That report was reaccomplished with a closeout
date of 1 Dec 00, as a nonreferral report, and was placed into his official
record. The first time the contested report would normally have been
considered in the promotion process was cycle 01E6. However, on 11 Oct 00,
the applicant received an Article 15 with a suspended reduction which
rendered him ineligible for promotion consideration. Should the Board
decide to remove the report, he would become a select for the 02E6 cycle
pending a favorable data verification and recommendation of the commander.
The DPPPWB evaluation is at Exhibit D.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on 14
Mar 03 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 an error or injustice that would warrant removal of the
contested report. Applicant contends that undue emphasis on an isolated
incident and improper processing procedures, resulted in an unfairly
written performance report. His contentions are duly noted; however, we do
not find his uncorroborated assertions, in and by themselves, sufficiently
persuasive to override the evidence of record and the rationale provided by
the Air Force. We are not convinced by the evidence he provided in support
of his appeal, that the contested report is not a true and accurate
assessment of his performance during the specified time period or that the
report was not processed in accordance with regulations in effect at the
time. Therefore, we agree with the opinions and recommendation of the Air
Force offices of primary responsibility and adopt their rationale as the
basis for our conclusion that the applicant has not 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 AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2003-
00373 in Executive Session on 3 Jun 03, under the provisions of AFI 36-
2603:
Mr. Wayne R. Gracie, Panel Chair
Mr. George Franklin, Member
Mrs. Carolyn J. Watkins-Taylor, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 22 Jan 03, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPPPE, dated 19 Feb 03.
Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/DPPPWB, dated 3 Mar 03.
Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 14 Mar 03.
WAYNE R. GRACIE
Panel Chair
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...
On 14 Apr 00, the investigating officer documented his findings during the report of survey identifying the applicant as being grossly negligent in his actions. The additional rater stated that the applicant did receive a copy of the EPR and referral memorandum. Therefore, in the absence of evidence that the contested report was an inaccurate depiction of the applicant’s performance at the time it was rendered, we adopt AFPC/DPPPE’s rationale and conclude that no basis exists to...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-01301
In addition, the dates indicated on the EPR as the dates of initial or mid-term feedback were falsified, as feedback was never performed. The DPPPE evaluation is at Exhibit C. AFPC/DPPPWB states should the EPR be removed, the applicant will receive supplemental promotion consideration for promotion cycle 04E6. The DPPPWB evaluation is at Exhibit D. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Copies of the Air Force...
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 | CY2002 | BC-2002-03566
The Evaluation Reports Appeal Board (ERAB) denied his request. A complete copy of the evaluation, with attachment, is attached at Exhibit C. AFPC/DPPPWB states that based on the applicant’s date of rank to technical sergeant, the first time the contested report will be used in the promotion process is cycle 03E7 to master sergeant (promotions effective August 2003 - July 2004). However, if favorable results are received by 1 May 2003, no supplemental consideration would be required as...
Applicant’s complete submission is attached at Exhibit A. On 30 Sep 99, applicant’s supervisor did not recommend her for reenlistment due to the referral EPR. A complete copy of the their evaluation, with attachments, is attached at Exhibit D. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Applicant reviewed the Air Force evaluations and provided a five-page letter responding to the advisory opinions.
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...
The applicant appealed the contested report under the provisions of AFI 36-2401, Correcting Officer and Enlisted Evaluations Reports. After reviewing the evidence submitted with this appeal, the Board majority notes that the applicant has not submitted any supporting documentation from the rating chain and has failed to provide sufficient evidence showing that the contested report was not an accurate assessment as rendered. The majority finds no evidence that the rating chain could not...
AF | BCMR | CY2002 | BC-2002-02982
On 1 December 1997, the applicant submitted an appeal to the Evaluation Reports Appeal Board (ERAB) requesting her EPR for the period 11 January 1999 through 15 September 1999 be upgraded from an overall “4” to an overall “5.” On 21 September 2000, the ERAB notified the applicant’s military personnel office that her appeal was considered and denied. The AFPC/DPPPWB evaluation is at Exhibit D. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-02982
On 1 December 1997, the applicant submitted an appeal to the Evaluation Reports Appeal Board (ERAB) requesting her EPR for the period 11 January 1999 through 15 September 1999 be upgraded from an overall “4” to an overall “5.” On 21 September 2000, the ERAB notified the applicant’s military personnel office that her appeal was considered and denied. The AFPC/DPPPWB evaluation is at Exhibit D. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE...