RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2003-03461
INDEX CODE: 111.02
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His Enlisted Performance Report (EPR), rendered for the period 20 April
2000 through 3 December 2000, be either upgraded to a “5” or declared void
and removed from his records.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
The rater was not available to observe his performance. The rater’s
comments were actually written by the additional rater.
In support of his request, the applicant submits a personal statement,
copies of his EPRs and training certificates. The applicant’s complete
submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
Information extracted from the Military Personnel Data System (MilPDS)
reveals the applicant’s Total Active Federal Military Service Date (TAFMSD)
as 16 February 1995. He is currently serving on active duty in the grade
of staff sergeant (E-5), with an effective date and date of rank of 1
October 2002.
Applicant's Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) profile for the last six
reporting periods follows:
Period Ending Evaluation
(SrA) 20 Apr 99 5 - Immediate Promotion
20 Apr 00 4 - Ready
* 3 Dec 00 3 - Consider
3 Dec 01 5
(SSgt) 3 Dec 02 5
10 Jul 03 5
* Contested report
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS:
HQ AFPC/DPPPE recommends the application be denied. DPPPE states the
applicant’s contention that the contested report was not written by his
designated rater has not been substantiated. DPPPE noted that the same
rater rendered the Apr 00 EPR and the applicant has not challenged this
report nor is there any proof a change of reporting official took place.
The HQ AFPC/DPPPE evaluation is at Exhibit C.
HQ AFPC/DPPPWB defers to the recommendation of HQ AFPC/DPPPEP. DPPPWB
states that based on the applicant’s date of rank to staff sergeant (E-5),
the first time the contested report was considered in the promotion process
is Cycle 05E6 to technical sergeant (E-6). Should the Board upgrade the
overall rating or void the report in its entirety, no supplemental
consideration would be necessary as there is sufficient time to update the
promotion file prior to release and announcement of selects sometime in
June 2005. 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 12 March
2004 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. We are unconvinced by the evidence
presented that the contested report was technically flawed when prepared,
or that the ratings were based on inaccurate information. Other than his
own assertions, there is no indication in the record before us that that
the rater did not have reasonable information available concerning the
applicant’s performance during the contested rating period on which to base
a reasonably accurate assessment. Direct supervision for an allotted time
is not a prerequisite for being the rater of a report. Evaluators may be
in positions where they have infrequent contact with the ratee. However,
they are still required to be aware of the ratee’s performance and its
impact on the unit’s mission. Additionally, we note that the rater on the
contested report was in the applicant’s rating chain on the preceding
report which, in our view, supports the position that the rater was
familiar with the applicant and was aware of his performance. We note the
applicant has not submitted any statements from his rating chain to provide
evidence showing the report was not an accurate assessment of his
performance at the time it was rendered. In the absence of such evidence,
we have no reason to question the accuracy of the contested report. In
view of the foregoing, we did not find sufficient evidence to substantiate
an error or injustice in the initial preparation of the contested report.
Therefore, we conclude that no basis exists to recommend favorable action
on the applicant’s request.
_________________________________________________________________
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 22 April 2004, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:
Mr. Robert S. Boyd, Panel Chair
Mr. John B. Hennessey, Member
Mr. Jay H. Jordan, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered in connection with AFBCMR
Docket Number BC-2003-03461.
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 27 Oct 03, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPPE, dated 1 Mar 04.
Exhibit D. Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPPWB, dated 2 Mar 04.
Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 12 Mar 04.
ROBERT S. BOYD
Panel Chair
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...
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 00-03018 INDEX CODE: 111.02, 134.01 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: An expired Unfavorable Information File (UIF), with a Letter of Reprimand (LOR) be removed from her records; the line in Section V (Rater’s Comments) of her Enlisted Performance Report (EPR), closing 23 Apr 99, which made the...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-00197
He provides three supporting statements from others as well as an email from the rater advising he would contact the additional rater about changing the rating of the contested EPR. In any event, we conclude that the contested EPR is not an accurate assessment of the applicant’s performance for the rating period in question and, to preclude any possibility of an injustice, recommend it be removed from his records. According to HQ AFPC/DPPPWB, the applicant was selected for technical...
On 14 Apr 00, the investigating officer documented his findings during the report of survey identifying the applicant as being grossly negligent in his actions. The additional rater stated that the applicant did receive a copy of the EPR and referral memorandum. Therefore, in the absence of evidence that the contested report was an inaccurate depiction of the applicant’s performance at the time it was rendered, we adopt AFPC/DPPPE’s rationale and conclude that no basis exists to...
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 | CY2006 | BC-2006-01995
Instead, para 4.7.5.2 is the appropriate reference that applies to the applicant and it states, “…the LOE becomes a referral document attached to the report.” After reviewing the referral EPR, the rater did not attach the LOE to the applicant’s referral EPR, therefore, as an administrative correction, DPPPEP recommends the LOE be attached to the referral EPR with corrections made to the “From and Thru” dates. DPPPWB states the first time the contested report would normally have...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-00823
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. We have noted the documents provided with the...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-03818
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2003-03818 INDEX CODE: 131.00 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: By amendment at Exhibit F, he asks that his Promotion Sequence Number (PSN) 6991 to the grade of technical sergeant (E-6) for promotion cycle 03E6 be reinstated. After thoroughly reviewing the applicant’s submission and the...
___________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS: The Inquiries/AFBCMR Section, AFPC/DPPPWB, evaluated this application and provided the following information regarding the impact of the two EPRs on the applicant’s promotion consideration: The first time the two EPRs impacted the applicant’s promotion consideration was cycle 94A6 to TSgt (promotions effective Aug 93–Jul 94). We therefore recommend that the contested reports be corrected as indicated...
No evidence of reprisal is provided, nor did any reprisal action seem to exist. A complete copy of the DPPPE evaluation, with attachment, is at Exhibit D. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: In his initial response to the advisory opinions, the applicant indicated that the original EPR provided was the smoking gun in this case. He believes that he has provided sufficient information to demonstrate that the report was...