RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2003-00772
INDEX CODE: 111.02
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX COUNSEL: NONE
XXXXXXXXXXXX HEARING DESIRED: NOT INDICATED
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) rendered for the period of 12 May
2001 through 12 March 2002 be removed from his records.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
The report in question should not have been written due to insufficient
supervision, creating an inaccurate evaluation of his performance.
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’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The Military Personnel Database (MilPDS) indicates the applicant has a
Total Active Federal Military Service Date of 26 September 1983. He has
continually served on active duty and has been progressively promoted to
the grade of technical sergeant (E-6), effective and with a date of rank of
1 April 1998.
On 6 November 2001, the applicant received an Article 15 punishment for
leaving his appointed place of duty and overindulgence in intoxicating
liquor, incapacitating him for proper performance of his duties.
Punishment imposed was a suspended reduction in grade to staff sergeant,
forfeiture of $150 pay per month for 2 months, and 14 days extra duty.
The applicant received a referral EPR for the period 2 May 2001 through 12
March 2002. The applicant submitted an appeal to the Evaluation Reports
Appeal Board (ERAB) in December 2002 requesting his EPR for the period 12
May 2001 through 12 March 2002 be removed from his records. On 10 January
2003, the ERAB notified the applicant’s military personnel office that his
appeal was returned without action because he did not have a statement from
his commander supporting the change of reporting official (CRO). A copy of
the ERAB’s decision is included with Exhibit A.
The following is a resume of the applicant’s EPR profile:
PERIOD ENDING PROMOTION RECOMMENDATION
04 Jul 96 5
01 May 97 5
01 May 98 5
01 May 99 5
01 May 00 5
01 May 01 5
12 Mar 02* 2
29 Dec 02 5
* Contested report
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
AFPC/DPPPE recommends denial to void the applicant’s EPR; however, they
support changing block 8 on the contested EPR to reflect 263 days of
supervision.
It is the applicant’s contention that he was reassigned to another duty
section effective 29 November 2001 and that he was TDY in excess of 30 days
during the rating period; therefore, the EPR in question should not have
been written due to insufficient supervision. He has provided letters from
both the rater and additional rater supporting the contention that he was
reassigned effective 29 November 2001. Additionally, he has provided
documentation supporting his contention that he was TDY in excess of 30
consecutive days. Using the applicant’s calculations, his calendar days of
supervision would be less than 120.
DPPPE indicates that AFI 36-2406, Officer and Enlisted Evaluation Systems,
paragraph 3.2.5.4, indicates that the commander determines the rating
chain. Therefore, the commander would have to certify that the applicant
changed raters effective 29 November 2001. DPPPE also cites AFI 36-2406,
table 3.7, rule 16, “If the rater changes as a result of PCS or PCA or an
approved change of designated rater and the period of supervision has been
at least 120 calendar days (the period of required supervision is reduced
to 60 or more calendar days for referral reports), then the reason for the
report is change of reporting official (CRO).” Although the applicant did
not submit support from his commander substantiating his contention that he
was reassigned on 29 November 2001, if you were to use the supervision
timeframe that the applicant alleges took place, you still end up with 90
days of supervision. That is enough supervision to substantiate the
validity of the referral EPR. Since the applicant did not provide the
necessary support from his commander, the only supported correction cited
in the applicant’s request for relief is that the number of day’s
supervision should be reduced by 52 days to equal 263 days. The AFPC/DPPPE
evaluation is at Exhibit C.
AFPC/DPPPWB defers to DPPPE’s recommendation. DPPPWB states the first time
the applicant’s contested report was used in the promotion process was
cycle 02E7 to master sergeant (promotions effective Aug 02 - Jul 03). The
fact that the EPR was a referral rendered the applicant ineligible for
promotion consideration. Should the AFBCMR void the report as requested;
he remains ineligible for promotion consideration for cycle 02E7 due to the
Article 15 received on 6 November 2001. The imposed punishment consisted
of a suspended reduction in grade to SSgt until 6 November 2001, which
rendered the applicant ineligible for promotion consideration. Should the
Board void the report, providing he is otherwise eligible, the applicant
will be entitled to supplemental consideration beginning with cycle 03E7
providing he is not selected during the initial selection process. The
AFPC/DPPPWB evaluation is at Exhibit D.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
On 9 May 2003, copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the
applicant for review and comment. 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 an error or injustice with respect to the number of days of
supervision shown on the applicant’s EPR closing 12 March 2002. It appears
that an error occurred at the time the applicant’s EPR was written. The
applicant was TDY for a total of 52 days during the rating period;
therefore, the number of days of supervision in block 8, section I, should
be adjusted to 263, as was recommended by the office of primary
responsibility.
4. Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the
existence of probable error or injustice warranting favorable consideration
of the applicant’s request that the contested report be removed from his
records. The applicant asserts that there was inadequate supervision under
the rater and additional rater for an EPR to be rendered; however, we find
no persuasive documentation was provided to support this contention. While
the rater and additional rater have made statements to redefine the rating
period, no evidence has been provided in the form of a statement by the
commander, who was responsible for approving a change of evaluators. In
view of this and in the absence of evidence showing the contested report is
an inaccurate depiction of his performance during the referent period, we
agree with the opinion and recommendation of the Air Force office of
primary responsibility. Accordingly, his request to set aside his EPR is
not favorably considered.
_________________________________________________________________
THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:
The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating
to APPLICANT, be corrected to show that the number of days of supervision
shown in Section I, Item 8 of the Enlisted Performance Report (AB thru
TSgt), AF Form 910, rendered for the period 2 May 2001 through 12 March
2002 was “263,” rather than “315.”
_________________________________________________________________
The following members of the Board considered this application in Executive
Session on 18 June 2003, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:
Mr. Thomas S. Markiewicz, Vice Chair
Mr. Wayne R. Gracie, Member
Mr. Billy C. Baxter, Member
All members voted to correct the records, as recommended, and to deny the
applicant’s stated request. The following documentary evidence for AFBCMR
Docket Number BC-2003-00772 was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Forms 149, dated 26 Feb 03.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPPPE, dated 17 Apr 03.
Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/DPPPWB, dated 24 Apr 03.
Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 9 May 03.
THOMAS S. MARKIEWICZ
Vice Chair
AFBCMR BC-BC-2003-00772
MEMORANDUM FOR THE CHIEF OF STAFF
Having received and considered the recommendation of the Air Force
Board for Correction of Military Records and under the authority of Section
1552, Title 10, United States Code (70A Stat 116), it is directed that:
The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force
relating to XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX, be corrected to show that the number
of days of supervision shown in Section I, Item 8 of the Enlisted
Performance Report (AB thru TSgt), AF Form 910, rendered for the period 2
May 2001 through 12 March 2002 was “263,” rather than “315.”
JOE G. LINEBERGER
Director
Air Force Review Boards Agency
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-2002-02758
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 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. After...
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 | CY2003 | BC-2003-00117
The EPR was rated an overall “4” which indicates, “ready for promotion,” and sections 5 and 6 of the EPR provide promotion comments. Air Force policy is that an evaluation report is accurate as written when it becomes a matter of record. The evaluation is at Exhibit D. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: On 4 April 2003, copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant for review and response...
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-2003-02200
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.
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-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...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-00215
In support of his appeal, the applicant provided a personal statement, Evaluation Reports Appeal Board (ERAB) Decision, dated 11 October 2002, the contested EPR closing 2 January 2002, AF Form 3070, Record of Nonjudicial Punishment Proceedings, dated 17 January 2002, a letter from the additional rater of the contested report, dated 10 July 2002, and other documentation. Therefore, the Board is of the opinion that these comments should be removed from the contested report and that he be...
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...