RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2003-03017
INDEX CODE: 111.02
COUNSEL: None
HEARING DESIRED: Yes
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
The Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) rendered for the period 6 March
2000 through 5 March 2001 be removed from his records.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
His signature was forged on his notification feedback letter. His
record is based on falsified US Air Force documents to which his
signature was forged. He was not provided feedback sessions by his
rater/supervisor throughout the period of supervision. His rater’s
comments are inconsistent with the evaluation of his performance
ratings. He was singled out for the treatment, which was inconsistent
with the treatment of his peers. This injustice resulted in his not
being allowed to retrain into another career field within the Air
Force Reserves.
Applicant's complete submission, with attachments, is attached at
Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The applicant enlisted in Regular Air Force on 8 October 1993 for a
period of four years. The applicant reenlisted in the Air Force on 29
November 1996 for a period of four years.
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
results of the official investigation were not provided.
The applicant was honorably discharged on 28 April 2001. He served 7
years, 6 months and 28 days of active service.
The applicant appealed the contested report under the provisions of
AFI 36-2401, Correcting Officer and Enlisted Evaluations Reports. The
Evaluation Reports Appeal Board (ERAB) returned the applicant’s appeal
without action because he was no longer on active duty or a
participating reservist.
The applicant’s EPR profile reflects the following:
PERIOD ENDING OVERALL EVALUATION
7 Jun 95 5
13 Apr 96 5
13 Apr 97 5
5 Mar 98 5
5 Mar 99 5
5 Mar 00 5
*5 Mar 01 4
* Contested report.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR STAFF EVALUATION:
AFPC/DPPPEP states the applicant’s contention that his performance
feedback notification was signed by his rater and his signature was
forged was not substantiated by evidence. They further state they are
not handwriting experts and cannot provide an official analysis,
however, they do agree that the signatures on the feedback
notification appear to be different than the other documents that were
signed by the applicant and rater. Without an official investigation,
the validity of the performance feedback document is questionable.
The applicant further alleged unfair treatment based on the fact that
no formal investigation occurred regarding the “forgery.” The
applicant’s specialty was in security forces and he should have been
aware of the procedures required to complete an official inquiry at
that time; and there is no evidence that an investigation was
completed. The applicant has not provided any evidence to support his
contention that he was not provided a feedback session on 21 October
2000. Apparently, the rater’s records indicated the feedback was
accomplished on 21 October 2000, which is what was annotated on the
report. Furthermore, if neither feedback session took place, that
alone does not mean the actual assessment of the applicant’s
performance is not accurate.
The applicant further stated that the ratings and the comments do not
match on the report. The ratings on a report are marked for the
servicemember’s performance through the entire rating period as a
whole. The comments are used to report specific events that the
servicemember may have excelled in, however, this does not necessarily
mean the servicemember excelled the entire reporting period.
Furthermore, the report is the rating chain’s assessment--not the
applicant’s.
AFPC/DPPPEP further states the applicant’s supervisory chain has not
provided any documentation indicating an injustice has occurred. 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.
A complete copy of their evaluation is attached at Exhibit C.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR STAFF EVALUATION:
A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on
15 November 2003, for review and response. As of this date, no
response has been received by this office.
_________________________________________________________________
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 warranting removal of the
contested report. After reviewing the available evidence, the Board
believes the applicant’s and the rater’s signatures on the feedback
notice and contested report are different than other documents they
signed. Without official documentation attesting to the validity of
the signatures, some doubt exists as to accuracy and fairness of the
contested report. In view of the above findings, we believe that any
doubt should be resolved in the applicant’s favor by removing the
contested report from his records. Accordingly, 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 AF Form 910,
Enlisted Performance Report, rendered for the period 6 March 2000
through 5 March 2001, be declared void and removed from his records.
_________________________________________________________________
The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket Number BC-
2003-03017 in Executive Session on 13 January 2004, under the
provisions of AFI 36-2603:
Ms. Charlene Bradley, Panel Chair
Ms. Olga M. Crerar, Member
Mr. Christopher Carey, Member
All members voted to correct the records, as recommended. The
following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 28 Aug 03, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Enlisted Performance Reports.
Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPPPEP, dated 6 Nov 03.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 15 Nov 03.
CHARLENE BRADLEY
Panel Chair
AFBCMR BC- BC-2003-03017
INDEX CODE: 111.02
MEMORANDUM FOR THE CHIEF OF STAFF
Having received and considered the recommendation of the Air
Force Board for Correction for 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 , be corrected to show that the AF
Form 910, Enlisted Performance Report, rendered for the period 6
March 2000 through 5 March 2001, be and hereby is, declared void and
removed from his records.
JOE G. LINEBERGER
Director
Air Force Review Boards Agency
Except for the contested report and a 2 Dec 91 EPR having an overall rating of “4,” all of the applicant’s performance reports since Dec 90 have had overall ratings of “5.” Since the Article 15’s suspended reduction expired on 12 Aug 96, prior to the 31 Dec 96 Promotion Eligibility Cutoff Date (PECD) for promotion cycle 97E6, the Article 15 did not affect the applicant’s eligibility for promotion consideration to technical sergeant for that cycle. ...
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.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBERS: 01-02507 INDEX CODE 111.02 111.03 111.05 COUNSEL: None HEARING DESIRED: Not Indicated _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: The Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) closing 12 May 99 be declared void and removed from his records _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: His evaluators were...
_________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: HQ AFPC/DPPPWB addressed the supplemental promotion consideration issue should the applicant’s request be approved. DPPPWB stated that the first time the contested report was considered in the promotion process was Cycle 97E5 to staff sergeant (E-5), promotions effective Sep 97 - Aug 98. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Having...
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 | CY2004 | BC-2003-03771
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2003-03771 INDEX CODE: 111.02 XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX COUNSEL: NONE XXXXXXXXXXXX HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) rendered for the period of 3 June 1999 through 30 January 2000 be removed from his records and he receive supplemental promotion consideration. On 22 February...
_________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: His EPR should be removed from his records because the rater signed a blank form and the rater did not intend to give him an overall rating of “4.” In support of his request applicant submits a copy of the contested EPR; personal statements from the rater and indorser; a copy of the Evaluation Reports Appeal Board (ERAB) decision; and an AF Form 931, Performance Feedback Worksheet. The following is a...
The following is a resume of his EPR profile: PERIOD ENDING PROMOTION RECOMMENDATION 15 May 00 3 (Contested Report) 15 May 01 3 (Contested Report) 15 May 02 5 Pursuant to a Inspector General (IG) complaint filed by the applicant containing two allegations that his additional rater inappropriately influenced his rater to give him a lower rating on the EPRs for the periods closing 15 May 00 and 15 May 01 and one allegation that the additional rater declined to support an EPR appeal package and...
AF | BCMR | CY2009 | BC-2008-03399
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2008-03399 INDEX CODE: 111.02 XXXXXXX COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ___________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) closing 8 Sep 06 be voided and removed from his record. HQ AFPC/DPPPEP’s complete evaluation is at Exhibit...
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...