RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2003-00432
INDEX CODE: 111.05
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
___________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
The Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) rendered for the period
17 Oct 00 - 16 Oct 01 be removed.
___________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
Her EPR is unjust because she never received any type of feedback
written or verbal stating that she was an “average” worker and has
consistently received feedback to the contrary. She received one
feedback during this period, which she perceived as a favorable
one.
She was moved to another noncommissioned officer-in-charge (NCOIC)
position and believes that her supervisor based the EPR rating on a
memorandum for record (MFR) from her former element chief.
Furthermore, the MFR was written during her orientation period as
documentation of training and she believes that if it was written
for poor work performance warranting a “3” rating, she would not
have been allowed to assume another NCOIC position after training
was completed.
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.
Applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.
___________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
Applicant is currently serving on active duty in the grade of staff
sergeant (SSgt), with a Date of Rank (DOR) of 1 September 1999.
A resume of applicant’s last ten EPRs follows:
PERIOD CLOSING OVERALL EVALUATION
23 Sep 94 4
23 Sep 95 5
23 Sep 96 5
02 May 97 4
02 May 98 4
02 May 99 4
02 May 00 4
16 Oct 00 5
* 16 Oct 01 3
16 Oct 02 4
* Contested Report
The applicant appealed the contested report under the provisions of
AFI 36-2401, Correcting Officer and Enlisted Evaluation Reports;
however, her appeal was returned without action by the Evaluation
Reports Appeal Board (ERAB) as there was no supporting
documentation from the rating chain.
___________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
HQ AFPC/DPPPE reviewed this application and recommended denial.
They state that the applicant contends that the EPR was based on
personal conflict rather than an accurate assessment of her actual
performance. The applicant has not provided any supporting
documentation to substantiate her allegation. The applicant
contends that based on her 5 Jun 01 performance feedback (which she
interpreted as favorable) she was unaware of the rater’s impression
that her performance was regressing and needed significant
improvement. They indicate that after examining her feedback, it
is clear that her rater pointed out several areas in which she
required improvement. She received a rating of “3” (consider for
promotion) on the contested EPR, indicating she met standards. 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 that performance.” The
performance is recorded on the EPR, along with a valid and
realistic recommendation for promotion (differentiating between
ratees with similar performance records). Air Force policy is that
an evaluation report is accurate as written when it becomes a
matter of record.
They found no errors or injustices on the 16 Oct 01 EPR, and the
applicant’s allegations were unsubstantiated.
A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation is at Exhibit C.
HQ AFPC/DPPPWB reviewed the application in regard to promotion
consideration should the application be approved. The first time
the contested report was used in the promotion process was cycle
02E6 to technical sergeant (promotions effective Aug 02 through
Jul 03). Should the board remove her EPR as requested, the
applicant will be entitled to supplemental promotion consideration.
However, she would not become a select as she missed promotion by
more than 40 points.
They defer to the recommendation of HQ AFPC/DPPPE.
A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation is at Exhibit D.
___________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
Applicant reiterated her original contentions and further explained
the circumstances surrounding her understanding of the performance
feedback system and preparation of the worksheet.
She provided a personal statement, dated 17 Mar 03; a letter from
her squadron commander on the contested report, and a letter of
support from the NCOIC, Medical Flight.
Applicant’s complete response is at Exhibit F.
___________________________________________________________________
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. We took notice of
the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of the
case. However, in our opinion, these documents do not support a
finding that the evaluators tasked with the responsibility of
assessing her performance were unable to render an unbiased
evaluation of her duty performance or that the evaluation was based
on factors other than the applicant’s duty performance during the
contested rating period. Furthermore, it appears that based on the
markings on the form the applicant interpreted her performance
feedback to be favorable. However, we note that the comments on
the feedback form clearly pointed out areas where she needed
improvement. In view of the foregoing, and in the absence of
evidence to the contrary, we conclude that there is no basis upon
which to recommend favorable action on the applicant’s request for
removal of the contested report from her records.
___________________________________________________________________
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-2003-00432 in Executive Session on 21 May 2003, under the
provisions of AFI 36-2603:
Mr. Thomas J. Topolski Jr., Panel Chair
Ms. Marilyn Thomas, Member
Ms. Ann-Cecile McDermott, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 31 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 26 Feb 03.
Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 14 Mar 03.
Exhibit F. Letter, Applicant, dated 17 Mar 03, w/atchs
THOMAS J. TOPOLSKI JR.
Panel Chair
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...
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...
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-2003-01811
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...
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 | CY2003 | BC-2003-02200
The applicant’s request under AFI 36-2401 to have the contested EPR removed from his records was denied by the ERAB. _________________________________________________________________ The following members of the Board considered Docket Number BC-2003-02200 in Executive Session on 8 October 2003, under the provisions of AFI 36- 2603: Mr. Thomas S. Markiewicz, Chair Ms. Martha Maust, Member Mr. Michael V. Barbino, Member By majority vote, the Board voted to deny the application. Exhibit B.
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...
Although the applicant did not submit a request to remove the EPR until after the convening of the 00E9 Evaluation Board, DPPPWB believes the circumstances of his case would warrant supplemental promotion consideration if the Board approves his request. A complete copy of their evaluation is attached at Exhibit D. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR STAFF EVALUATION: Complete copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to...
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.