RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2003-04004
INDEX CODE: 111.02
COUNSEL: None
HEARING DESIRED: Yes
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His Enlisted Performance Reports (EPRs) rendered for the periods 10
June 1999 - 9 June 2000 and 10 June 2000 - 9 June 2001 be removed from
his records.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
His rater and additional rater were charged and convicted of racial
discrimination. He believes he was unfairly treated. He contends
that other individuals in the unit received higher ratings, when their
performance was not deserving of a higher rating. He implies he was
discriminated against based on the rater and additional rater being
convicted of racial discrimination. He is a stellar performer and the
unfair, unjust treatment he received has caused his career to suffer.
Applicant's complete submission, with attachments, is attached at
Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The applicant is currently serving in the Regular Air Force in the
grade of technical sergeant.
On 17 September 2002, the applicant filed a racial discrimination
complaint with Military Equal Opportunity (MEO) office. The MEO
officer reviewed the complaint and determined the application did not
fall in the purview of MEO.
The applicant filed a complaint with the Inspector General (IG),
however they dismissed the case because it was submitted more than 60
days after the alleged wrong.
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) denied the applicant’s request
and recommended he reapply with more information.
EPR profile as a technical sergeant reflects the following:
PERIOD ENDING OVERALL EVALUATION
9 Jun 99 5
*9 Jun 00 4
*9 Jun 01 3
9 Jun 02 5
9 Jun 03 5
* Contested reports.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR STAFF EVALUATION:
AFPC/DPPPE states the applicant has not provided any evidence
indicating his rater or additional rater were guilty of racial
discrimination or that he was discriminated against due to his race.
Even if evidence had been submitted indicating the rater and
additional rater were guilty of racial discrimination that alone would
not automatically support the assessment on the contested reports were
inaccurate. If the applicant believed he was being discriminated
against, he should have filed an official investigation or complaint.
No evidence was submitted indicating the applicant’s evaluators were
biased and that their objectivity was so affected that fair and
accurate report was not possible. Furthermore, the applicant has not
provided any documentation of support from his rating chain. The
applicant provided two unsigned letters from coworkers which provided
their view of some events in the unit and does not support the
allegation of discrimination. The applicant has not provided any
proof he was being discriminated against or his reports should be
voided due to unjust treatment or personality conflict. Therefore,
based on the evidence submitted they recommend denying the applicant’s
request.
A complete copy of their evaluation is attached at Exhibit C.
AFPC/DPPPWB states the first cycle the 9 June 2000, EPR was considered
in the promotion process was the 01E7 cycle to master sergeant. They
further state if the Board voids this report and the applicant is
otherwise eligible, he would be entitled to supplemental consideration
for the 01E7 cycle. However, he would not become a select for this
cycle because his total score would increase to 315.19 and the
required score in his AFSC selection was 339.66.
The 9 June 2001, EPR was first considered in the promotion process to
master sergeant with the 02E7 cycle. If the Board voids both of the
contested reports, the applicant would be a select for the 02E7 cycle
pending favorable data verification and a recommendation from his
commander. However, if the Board voids only one of these two reports,
he would not be a select for the 02E7 cycle because his score would
increase to 317.16 and the required score for selection in his AFSC
was 322.66.
The applicant was considered and nonselected for promotion to the
grade of master sergeant for the 03E7 cycle. His score was 324.16 and
the required score for selection was 331.18. If the Board voids only
one of the two contested reports, the applicant would remain a
nonselect for the 03E7 cycle.
AFPC/DPPPWB defers to the recommendation of AFPC/DPPPE.
A complete copy of their evaluation is attached at Exhibit D.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR STAFF EVALUATION:
The applicant reviewed the Air Force evaluation and states his package
contained information showing that favoritism and racism were
prevalent in his squadron. His package also showed his squadron
awarded individuals a “5” rating on their EPRs when their work
performance did not support a five rating.
Applicant’s complete response with attachments is attached, 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 an error or injustice. After a thorough review of
the evidence of record and the applicant’s submission, the Board
majority is not persuaded relief should be granted. The applicant’s
contentions are duly noted; however, the Board majority does not find
these assertions, in and by themselves, sufficiently persuasive to
override the rationale provided by the Air Force offices of primary
responsibility. While the majority notes the applicant indicates two
of his rating chain members was allegedly charged and convicted of
racial discrimination, he has not provided persuasive evidence showing
these raters were racially biased and discriminated against him.
Further, the applicant has not submitted supporting documentation from
any rating chain members indicating the contested reports were not
accurate assessments as rendered or that either rating chain was
unable to render an honest, objective assessment of his performance
during the contested time periods. The Air Force has a no tolerance
policy on discrimination and racial harassment and any service member
who feels they are a victim of unfair treatment has the option of
filing a complaint through the Military Equal Opportunity (MEO)
Office. The Board majority notes the applicant did utilize this
option, but it was determined his concerns did not meet the
requirements within the purview of MEO. Lastly, the majority notes
the applicant did not pursue his concerns through the Office of the
Inspector General (IG) in a timely manner. Therefore, the Board
majority agrees with the opinions and recommendations of the Air Force
and adopts their rationale as the basis for their conclusion the
applicant has not been the victim of either an error or an injustice.
In view of the foregoing, the Board majority finds no compelling basis
upon which to recommend granting the requested relief
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 issue(s) 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 AFBCMR Docket Number BC-
2003-04004 in Executive Session on 23 March 2004, under the provisions
of AFI 36-2603.
Mr. Richard A. Peterson, Panel Chair
Ms. Jean A. Reynolds, Member
Ms. Cheryl V. Jacobson, Member
By majority vote, the Board recommended denying the application. Mr.
Peterson voted to grant correcting the records but he does not desire
to submit a Minority Report. The following documentary evidence was
considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 24 Nov 03, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Enlisted Performance Reports.
Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPPPE, dated 15 Jan 04.
Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/DPPPWB, dated 22 Jan 04.
Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 6 Feb 04.
Exhibit F. Applicant’s Response, dated 25 Feb 04, w/atchs.
RICHARD A. PETERSON
Panel Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-01811
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2003-01811 INDEX CODE: 111.00 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: The Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) rendered for the period 6 October 1999 through 5 October 2000 be declared void and removed from his records and he be provided supplemental consideration for promotion to the grade of master...
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 | CY2003 | BC-2002-03828
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 02-03828 INDEX CODE: 111.02 APPLICANT COUNSEL: None SSN HEARING DESIRED: Yes _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) rendered for the period 26 July 2000 through 11 June 2001 and all accompanying attachments be declared void and he be considered for promotion by a special selection board (SSB). ...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-00772
In support of his request, the applicant submits a copy of the Evaluation Reports Appeal Board (ERAB) denial letter dated 10 January 2003, a copy of the contested EPR, a copy of the referral EPR notification, a copy of supporting statements from his raters and additional rater, a copy of his TDY voucher, and his letter concerning his former commander. The applicant submitted an appeal to the Evaluation Reports Appeal Board (ERAB) in December 2002 requesting his EPR for the period 12 May...
AF | BCMR | CY2002 | BC-2002-01793
The patrolman reported that the applicant stated that he was not going to be handcuffed and he grabbed the patrolman’s arm. He also stated that the witnesses’ statement was not true. He contends that out of three alcohol incidents under the same commander, only the African Americans were punished.
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-01974
Further, it was improper for the rater to document the alleged misconduct since he was not the applicant’s supervisor during the period it occurred and also did not have 60 days of supervision as required for referral reports. An annual report was rendered on 30 Jan 02, as required, and the LOR was documented in the EPR by the rater in the new unit (causing the report to be referred). Applicant’s counsel states “unfavorable information should perhaps not been included in any report …”...
Too much emphasis was placed on a Letter of Admonition (LOA); there was bias by the additional rater; and, the number of days of supervision is incorrect. The HQ AFPC/DPPPEP evaluation is at Exhibit C. HQ AFPC/DPPPWB stated that the first time the contested report was considered in the promotion process was Cycle 01E7 to master sergeant (E-7), promotions effective Aug 01 - Jul 02. However, they do not, in the Board majority’s opinion, support a finding that the evaluators were unable to...
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 | CY2004 | BC-2003-03286
The applicant has tested two other times for promotion to E-7 and received an SKT score of 32.63 for cycle 01E7 and 44.32 for cycle 02E7. Since the WAPS was approved by the Secretary of the Air Force on 3 July 1968, over 50,000 tests have been manually scored and the results compared against the computer score. As of this date, no response has been received by this office (Exhibit C).
AF | BCMR | CY2002 | BC-2002-03566
The Evaluation Reports Appeal Board (ERAB) denied his request. A complete copy of the evaluation, with attachment, is attached at Exhibit C. AFPC/DPPPWB states that based on the applicant’s date of rank to technical sergeant, the first time the contested report will be used in the promotion process is cycle 03E7 to master sergeant (promotions effective August 2003 - July 2004). However, if favorable results are received by 1 May 2003, no supplemental consideration would be required as...