RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2003-02535
INDEX NUMBER: 111.00
XXXXXXXXXXXXX COUNSEL: None
XXX-XX-XXXX HEARING DESIRED: Yes
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
The Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) rendered on him for the period 2
Nov 99 through 1 Nov 00 be declared void and removed from his records.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
He received a performance feedback with all factors marked to the
right within 90 days of the EPR being rendered and also had no
administrative actions taken against him for any reason.
In support of his appeal, the applicant has provided a copy of his
earlier appeal to the Evaluation Reports Appeal Board (ERAB).
The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit
A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The applicant is presently serving on active duty in the grade of
technical sergeant (TSgt). Based on data contained in the military
personnel data system, the applicant received overall ratings of “5”
on the two EPRs prior to the contested report and overall ratings of
“5” on the two EPRs after the contested report.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
AFPC/DPPPEP recommends denial of the applicant’s appeal. There is not
necessarily a direct correlation between information provided during
feedback sessions and the assessments on evaluation reports. A
performance feedback worksheet with all items marked “needs little or
no improvement” means the ratee is meeting the rater’s standard at the
time. It does not guarantee a firewalled EPR. If a rater discovers
problems after a positive feedback session, he or she must record the
problems in the evaluation report even when it disagrees with the
previous feedback.
The complete evaluation is at Exhibit C.
AFPC/DPPPEP evaluated the impact of the contested EPR on the
applicant’s previous promotion considerations. If the report is
voided, the applicant would be eligible for supplemental consideration
beginning with cycle 02E7. However, his score would not increase
enough for him to be selected for promotion.
The complete evaluation is at Exhibit D.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
In his response to the Air Force evaluation, the applicant states that
he does not understand how the Board process does not take into
account all of the information prior to and after his EPR was written.
He has been advised by personnel in the military personnel flight and
his squadron that “5” ratings are almost always given except in cases
of disciplinary issues or other significant infractions by the
individual during a rating period. He states that he has never had an
issue that would place him in this category.
The 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, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of the Air
Force office of primary responsibility and adopt their rationale as
the primary basis for our conclusion that the applicant has not been
the victim of an error or injustice. Although the feedback form
received by the applicant was marked primarily to the right in most
areas, “needs little or no improvement,” we do not find this totally
inconsistent with the markings on his EPR. The markdowns by one
block in four of the performance factors in Section III of the
contested EPR appear to support the overall rating of “4.”
Regardless, the feedback worksheet alone does not provide sufficient
evidence that the applicant was rated unfairly. Therefore, in the
absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no compelling basis to
recommend granting the relief sought in this application.
4. The applicant's case is adequately documented and it has not been
shown that a personal appearance with or without counsel will
materially add to our understanding of the issues involved.
Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorably considered.
_________________________________________________________________
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 Docket Number BC-2003-
02535 in Executive Session on 18 December 2003 and on 7 January
2004, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:
Ms. Carolyn J. Watkins-Taylor, Panel Chair
Ms. Martha J. Evans, Member
Mr. Roscoe Hinton, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 1 Jul 03, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Memorandum, AFPC/DPPPEP, dated 9 Oct 03.
Exhibit D. Memorandum, AFPC/DPPPWB, dated 22 Oct 03.
Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 7 Nov 03.
CAROLYN J. WATKINS-TAYLOR
Panel Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-02059
The applicant filed an appeal under the provisions of AFI 36-2401, Correcting Officer and Enlisted Evaluation Reports. A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 18 Aug 06 for review and comment within 30 days. MARILYN M. THOMAS Vice Chair AFBCMR BC-2006-03059 MEMORANDUM FOR THE CHIEF OF STAFF Having...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-02787
_________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: The “4” rating does not match the accomplishments for the reporting period; the feedback AF Form 931 marked to the extreme right margin stated he needed little or no improvement; he received no counseling from his supervisor if there was need for improvement from the last feedback prior to EPR closeout; his entire career reflects superior performance in all areas of responsibilities past and present,...
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2007-01970
_________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPPPEP recommends denial of the applicant’s request to void his EPR or change the promotion recommendation. An incorrect feedback date and administrative corrections to an evaluator’s signature date after the close-out date of the report are not grounds for, nor warrant voiding an EPR. Concerning the feedback date on the contested EPR, we note that AFPC administratively corrected the applicant’s...
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2006-03161
His additional rater abused his authority to encourage his deployed supervisor to reissue a Letter of Evaluation (LOE) with a negative statement in order to substantiate his comments and ratings on the contested EPR. ________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: The additional rater of the contested EPR closing 9 November 2003, downgraded ratings rendered by the Rater in Section III, Evaluation of Performance, for “How Well Does Ratee Perform Assigned...
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2006-03817
The purpose of the feedback session is to give the ratee direction and to define performance expectations for the rating period in question. The complete evaluation is at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant states the performance feedback work sheet is used to tell a ratee what is expected regarding duty performance and how well expectations are being met. After reviewing the documentation...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-03017
On 17 April 2001, the applicant filed an AF Form 1168 (Statement of Suspect/Witness/Complaint) contending that his signature was forged on a notification feedback letter for the EPR closing 5 March 2001. The validity of the document the applicant alleges to have been forged cannot be verified and the applicant has not provided any evidence to substantiate the report was not an accurate of assessment of his performance during the rating period. After reviewing the available evidence, the...
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2007-00452
In support of his request, the applicant submits copies of his EPRs; performance feedback evaluations; awards and decorations; letters of support; leave and earnings statements; temporary duty (TDY) documentation; excerpts of Air Force Instruction (AFI) 36-2406; Application for Correction/Removal of Evaluation Reports and correspondence concerning supplemental board consideration. DPPPEP states a report is not erroneous or unfair because the applicant believes it contributed to a...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-01662
The following is a resume of the applicant’s EPR profile: PERIOD ENDING PROMOTION RECOMMENDATION 15 Oct 02 5 15 Oct 03* 4 15 Oct 04 5 15 Oct 05 5 *Contested reports The ERAB considered and denied the applicant’s request to remove the contested report on 18 October 2005. However, while current Air Force policy requires performance feedback for personnel, a direct correlation between information provided during feedback sessions and the assessments on evaluation reports does not necessarily...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-02532
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2006-02532 INDEX CODE: 111.02 XXXXXXXXXX COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 26 FEB 2008 ___________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His enlisted performance report closing 15 Jan 04 be voided. There may be occasions when feedback was not provided during a reporting period. A complete copy of the...
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2006-03204
Applicant states the evaluation of performance markings do not match up with the rater/additional rater's comments and promotion recommendation. 3.8.5.2 states do not suspense or require raters to submit signed/completed reports any earlier than five duty days after the close-out date. The applicant contends that he did not receive feedback and that neither the rater, nor the additional rater was his rater’s rater.