RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2003-00823
INDEX CODE: 111.02
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His Enlisted Performance Report (EPR), rendered for the period 16 Feb
02 through 17 Nov 02, be declared void and removed from his records;
and, that his Promotion Sequence Number (PSN) be reinstated.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
The contested report was written with bias and prejudice, without due
process and the required documentation. The contested report was
written in reaction to a former civilian’s intent to file an EEOC
complaint against the Education Services Office.
In support of his request, the applicant submits copies of the
contested referral report, his response to the referral report, two
statements of support, performance feedback worksheets, EPRs closing
20 Apr 01 and 15 Feb 02, and the Evaluation Reports Appeal Board
(ERAB) decision. The applicant’s complete submission, with
attachments, is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The applicant’s Total Active Federal Military Service Date (TAFMSD) is
5 Apr 83. He is currently serving on active duty in the grade of
technical sergeant (E-6), with an effective date and date of rank of 1
Sep 99. The following is a resume of his EPR ratings subsequent to
his promotion to that grade.
Period Ending Evaluation
20 Apr 00 5 - Immediate Promotion
20 Apr 01 5
15 Feb 02 4 - Ready for Promotion
* 17 Nov 02 3 - Consider for Promotion
* Contested referral report
A similar appeal by the applicant, under Air Force Instruction (AFI)
36-2401, was considered and denied by the Evaluation Report Appeal
Board (ERAB) on 21 Feb 03.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
HQ AFPC/DPPPE recommends the applicant’s request to void his EPR,
closing 17 Nov 02, be denied. DPPPE states that the applicant has
incorrectly assumed that there must be some sort of required formal
documentation completed prior to rendering a referral evaluation. The
applicant has not provided evidence that would substantiate his
allegations that his rater was biased towards him. Although the
applicant claims there was no formal documentation to warrant the
referral report, he has provided copies of formal feedback he received
during the reporting period clearly identifying concerns with his
performance in fostering teamwork (specifically with civilians).
After reviewing the rater’s referral report and the applicant’s
rebuttal, the additional rater and commander concurred with the
referral EPR as written. The HQ AFPC/DPPPE evaluation is at Exhibit
C.
HQ AFPC/DPPPWB defers to the recommendation of HQ AFPC/DPPPE regarding
the removal of the contested EPR. With respect to the issue of
supplemental promotion, DPPPE states that the applicant was
tentatively selected for promotion to the grade of master sergeant (E-
7) during cycle 02E7, promotions effective Aug 02 - Jul 03. When the
applicant received the referral EPR, it automatically cancelled his
promotion for cycle 02E7 and also rendered him ineligible for cycle
03E7. Individuals regain their promotion eligibility only after
receiving an EPR with a rating of “3” or higher, that is not a
referral, and closes out on or before the Promotion Eligibility Cutoff
Date (PECD) for the next cycle. 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. As of this date, no response has been
received by this office (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. Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate
the existence of error or injustice. After a thorough review of the
evidence of record and applicant’s submission, we are unpersuaded that
the contested EPR should be removed from his record. We have noted
the documents provided with the applicant’s submission. However, they
do not, in our opinion, support a finding that the evaluators were
unable to render unbiased evaluations of the applicant’s performance
or that the ratings on the contested report were based on factors
other than applicant’s duty performance during the contested rating
period. Evaluators are required to assess a ratee’s performance,
honestly and to the best of their ability, based on their observance
of an individual’s performance. Additionally, we found no evidence
that the contested report was prepared contrary to the governing Air
Force Instruction. In view of the foregoing and absent statements
from his rating chain, we agree with the comments and recommendation
of the appropriate Air Force office (HQ AFPC/DPPPE). Therefore, in
the absence of sufficient 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 this application in
Executive Session on 8 July 2003, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:
Mr. John L. Robuck, Panel Chair
Mr. Christopher Carey, Member
Ms. Martha Maust, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 5 Mar 03, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPPE, dated 17 Apr 03.
Exhibit D. Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPPWB, dated 24 Apr 03.
Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 2 May 03.
JOHN L. ROBUCK
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...
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 | 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 | CY2004 | BC-2003-00823-2
ADDENDUM TO RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2003-00823 INDEX CODE: 111.02 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: In the applicant’s request for reconsideration, he requests his Enlisted Performance Report (EPR), rendered for the period 16 Feb 02 through 17 Nov 02, be declared void and removed from his records; and, that his...
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...
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-2003-01974
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 | 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...
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.