Search Decisions

Decision Text

AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-02535
Original file (BC-2003-02535.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

                       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


Similar Decisions

  • AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-02059

    Original file (BC-2006-02059.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    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

    Original file (BC-2002-02787.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    _________________________________________________________________ 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

    Original file (BC-2007-01970.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    _________________________________________________________________ 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

    Original file (BC-2006-03161.DOC) Auto-classification: Denied

    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

    Original file (BC-2006-03817.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    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

    Original file (BC-2003-03017.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    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

    Original file (BC-2007-00452.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    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

    Original file (BC-2006-01662.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    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

    Original file (BC-2006-02532.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    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

    Original file (BC-2006-03204.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    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.