RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2003-01921
INDEX NUMBER: 111.00
XXXXXXXXXXXXX COUNSEL: None
XXX-XX-XXXX HEARING DESIRED: No
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
The Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) rendered on him for the period
16 Jun 99 through 26 Oct 99 be voided and removed from his records.
He be given supplemental promotion consideration to senior master
sergeant beginning with cycle 03E8.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
His rater failed to write and process his EPR in a timely manner per
AFI 36-2406 and failed to follow Joint Staff reviewing policy.
His rater used a letter of reprimand given to him after the closeout
date of his EPR to justify marking his report down.
He was not given performance feedback in sufficient time before his
EPR closeout date to make any improvements.
Although he had a marked down EPR, he still received the Joint
Service Commendation Medal for his end of tour.
He does not believe that the Evaluation Reports Appeal Board, in
denying his appeal, reviewed his package in total and that they
ignored key comments contained in a key letter of support he
provided.
In support of his appeal, the applicant provides copies of his last 5
EPRs, a letter of support from the Commander, United States European
Command, a copy of his appeal to the ERAB, and other documents.
The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit
A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The applicant entered active duty in the Air Force on 17 Dec 82. He
was promoted to the grade of master sergeant on 1 Jan 01. A review
of his last ten EPRs indicates overall ratings of “5.” However, the
EPR closing 26 Oct 99 is marked down one block in Section III,
Evaluation of Performance in the factor “How well does ratee perform
assigned duties?” and “How well does ratee comply with standards?”
The applicant was a nonselectee for promotion to the grade of senior
master sergeant (SMSgt) during cycle 03E8.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
AFPC/DPPPE recommends denial of the applicant’s request to void his
EPR closing 26 Oct 99. The applicant stated in his appeal to the
ERAB that the policy on reviewing EPRs required General R____ to
perform a quality check. However, General R______ stated that he had
changed offices and was no longer required to perform these checks.
The report did receive the required quality review as indicated by
the signature in the front, left margin of the report.
Although the LOR the applicant received may have come after the
closeout date of his EPR, his response to the LOR indicates that
there had been numerous counselings that took place during the rating
period and could be considered by the evaluators. Further, a report
is not considered erroneous or unjust because feedback may not have
been given in a timely manner.
The only documentation provided from the rating chain is an LOR the
applicant received from the rater and a feedback stating the
applicant had made progress, but was still lacking in the same areas
marked down on the EPR. The applicant stated that he was not given a
fair amount of time to improve his performance; however, it clearly
states on the Performance Feedback that the applicant had made
significant progress since July (alluding to the fact that the
applicant was quite aware of the areas he needed improvement on).
The complete evaluation is at Exhibit C.
AFPC/DPPPWB provided information regarding the impact of the
contested EPR on the applicant’s promotion opportunity. If the
report is voided, he will be entitled to supplemental promotion
consideration beginning with cycle 03E8. They defer to AFPC/DPPPE’s
recommendation regarding removal of the EPR.
The complete evaluation is at Exhibit D.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
The applicant responded to the Air Force evaluations by providing a
letter of support from the indorser on his contested report. He also
offers further explanation in support of his contention that the memo
he provided from the Vice Chairman was misinterpreted by the ERAB and
in the Air Force evaluations.
The applicant’s complete response, with attachments, 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. Sufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate
the existence of error or injustice. The Board notes that the two
main points considered by the ERAB in rendering their decision to
disapprove removal of the applicant’s contested EPR was (1) the
letter of support he submitted was not from anyone in his rating
chain and (2) he did not provide anything showing that his indorser
supported removing the report. Along with his rebuttal to the Air
Force evaluations, the applicant has provided a clear, unequivocal
letter of support from his indorser asking that the EPR be removed
from his records. The Board also notes that both letters of support
are provided by flag officers at the highest level of military
service. Therefore, we recommend that the applicant’s records be
corrected as indicated below.
_________________________________________________________________
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT:
The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force
relating to APPLICANT, be corrected to show that the Enlisted
Performance Report (AB thru TSgt), AF Form 910, rendered for the
period 16 Jun 99 through 26 Oct 99, be declared void and removed from
his records.
It is further recommended that he be provided supplemental
consideration for promotion to the grade of senior master sergeant (E-
8) beginning with cycle 03E8.
If AFPC discovers any adverse factors during or subsequent to
supplemental consideration that are separate and apart, and unrelated
to the issues involved in this application that would have rendered
the applicant ineligible for the promotion, such information will be
documented and presented to the Board for a final determination on
the individual’s qualifications for the promotion.
If supplemental promotion consideration results in the selection for
promotion to the higher grade, immediately after such promotion the
records shall be corrected to show that he was promoted to the higher
grade on the date of rank established by the supplemental promotion
and that he is entitled to all pay, allowances, and benefits of such
grade as of that date.
_________________________________________________________________
The following members of the Board considered Docket Number BC-2003-
01921 in Executive Session on 6 October 2003, under the provisions of
AFI 36-2603:
Ms. Marilyn Thomas, Panel Chair
Ms. Barbara R. Murray, Member
Ms. Ann-Cecile McDermott, Member
All members voted to correct the records, as recommended. The
following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 5 Jun 03, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Memorandum, AFPC/DPPPE, dated 24 Jun 03.
Exhibit D. Memorandum, AFPC/DPPPWB, dated 1 Jul 03.
Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 18 Jul 03.
Exhibit F. Memorandum, Applicant, dated 4 Aug 03,
w/atchs.
MARILYN THOMAS
Panel Chair
AFBCMR BC-2003-01921
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 XXXXXXXXX, XXX-XX-XXXX, be corrected to show that
the Enlisted Performance Report (AB thru TSgt), AF Form 910,
rendered for the period 16 Jun 99 through 26 Oct 99, be, and hereby
is, declared void and removed from his records.
It is further directed that he be provided supplemental
consideration for promotion to the grade of senior master sergeant
(E-8) beginning with cycle 03E8.
If AFPC discovers any adverse factors during or subsequent to
supplemental consideration that are separate and apart, and
unrelated to the issues involved in this application that would
have rendered the applicant ineligible for the promotion, such
information will be documented and presented to the Board for a
final determination on the individual’s qualifications for the
promotion.
If supplemental promotion consideration results in the
selection for promotion to the higher grade, immediately after such
promotion the records shall be corrected to show that he was
promoted to the higher grade on the date of rank established by the
supplemental promotion and that he is entitled to all pay,
allowances, and benefits of such grade as of that date.
JOE G. LINEBERGER
Director
Air Force Review Boards Agency
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 | CY2005 | BC-2004-02657
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2004-02657 INDEX NUMBER: 111.02 XXXXXXX COUNSEL: NONE XXXXXXX HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: The Enlisted Performance Report (EPR), rendered for the period 3 March 2001 through 2 March 2002, be removed from his records. However, after a careful review and consideration of all factors involved, the...
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...
However, based on the supporting statement from the former MPF chief and the superior ratings the applicant has received before and since, the majority of the Board believes the possibility exists that the contested EPR may be flawed. Therefore, in order to offset the possibility of an injustice, the Board majority concludes that any doubt should be resolved in this applicant’s favor by voiding the 31 Jul 99 EPR from his records and granting him supplemental promotion consideration. ...
Therefore, DPPPAB recommended the Board direct the removal of the mid-term feedback date from the contested EPR and add the following statement: “Ratee has established that no mid-term feedback session was provided in accordance with AFI 36-2403.” A complete copy of this evaluation is appended at Exhibit D. APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to applicant on 10 Sep 99 for review and response. The mid-term feedback date be removed...
_________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Chief, Inquiries/AFBCMR Section, Enlisted Promotion & Military Testing Branch, HQ AFPC/DPPPWB, reviewed this application and states that the first time the contested report was considered in the promotion process was cycle 95E6 to technical sergeant (promotions effective August 95 - July 1996). A complete copy of the evaluation is attached at Exhibit C. The Chief, Promotion, Evaluation and...
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.
In support of his appeal, applicant provided copies of the contested report, a performance feedback worksheet received during the contested rating period, two prior evaluations and a subsequent evaluation, and a supporting statement from the rater on the contested report. DPPP stated that even though the EPR was written some 11 months after the closeout of the report, nothing is provided by the applicant or the evaluators to demonstrate that the comments contained in the EPR are inaccurate....
Both the commander and the indorser provide information on why although they originally supported the rating given the applicant, later determined that it was not a fair or objective evaluation. The complete evaluation is at Exhibit D. _______________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant responded to the Air Force evaluations. Exhibit F. Memorandum, Applicant, dated 15 Nov 01.
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2004-02755
A complete copy of the evaluation is attached at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR STAFF EVALUATION: The applicant reviewed the Air Force evaluation and states he did file an IG complaint, which he included with his application. However, based on the applicant’s previous and subsequent performance reports,the performance feedback he received prior to the contested report, and the letter from the rater of the contested...