RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2004-00637
INDEX CODE: 111.02
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: YES
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
Her Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) rendered for the period 10 Nov 01
through 12 Sep 02, be removed from her records.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
When the EPR was referred to her the overall rating was "4" but when it was
finalized the overall rating was "3." The EPR should have been referred to
her twice. The EPR accuses her of knowing about fraternization and not
reporting it, when in fact she did not know anything about it.
In support of her request, applicant provided documentation associated with
her Inspector General (IG) appeal, a witness statement; a copy of her AF
Form 418, Selective Reenlistment Program Consideration; a draft EPR closing
28 Jan 03, and her official use request. Her complete submission, with
attachments is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The applicant contracted her initial enlistment in the Regular Air Force on
13 Sep 95. She has been progressively promoted to the grade of staff
sergeant having assumed that grade effective and with a date of rank of 1
Feb 01.
The following is a resume of her EPR profile:
Period Ending Promotion Recommendation
28 Jan 03 5
12 Sep 02 3*
09 Nov 01 5
09 Nov 00 5
09 Nov 99 5
14 Feb 99 5
14 Feb 98 5
14 Feb 97 5
* - Contested Report
The applicant submitted an appeal to the Evaluation Reports Appeal Board
(ERAB). The ERAB denied her request based on lack of evidence to show the
report was "4" when it was initially referred to her.
On 25 Nov 02, applicant requested voluntary separation under the provisions
of AFI 36-3208 for miscellaneous reasons. Her request was approved and she
was honorably discharged on 1 Feb 03. She served 7 years, 4 months, and 19
days on active duty.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
AFPC/DPPPE recommends denial of the applicant's request to void the report;
however, recommends the ratings in section IV be corrected to reflect "4"
for both the rater and additional rater. DPPAE states the IG
investigation, which was not part of the ERAB package, substantiated the
referral process was mishandled. The IG investigation states there was an
additional referral comment added to Section VI, specifically, "her
leadership and followership skills need improvement." This comment is not
considered to be referral in nature because it reemphasizes what the rater
has already stated in Section IV. The mere fact that an evaluator believes
skills of a ratee need improvement does not automatically mean the report
must be referred.
In support of her appeal, she provided a statement from an airman who was
part of the fraternization allegation as well as an AF Form 418. The
statement is not new. The evaluators were already aware of it when they
rendered the EPR and based on their review of the circumstances, believed
further action was required. The issue was thoroughly investigated and she
was subsequently given a Letter of Reprimand and an Unfavorable Information
File was established. The AF Form 418 was completed by different
evaluators several months after the contested report had closed. In fact,
the incidents in question, while appropriate to document on a performance
report, will not usually result in nonrecomendation for retention.
DPPPE believes voiding the entire report is not the best course of action.
Since the original ratings were "4" before they were given incorrect
information, it is only logical to correct the ratings versus voiding the
report. Correcting the rating to "4" makes the report accurate based on
the intended rating and there is not sufficient documentation to conclude
the remaining report was not a fair and accurate assessment. The
applicant's own rebuttal strongly validates that once the rating is
corrected to a "4" the report is an accurate assessment as written.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 2 Apr
04 for review and comment within 30 days. As of this date, this office has
received no response.
_________________________________________________________________
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 that would warrant voidance of the
contested report. Evidence has not been presented which would lead us to
believe that the contested report is not an accurate depiction of the
applicant's performance and demonstrated potential during the period in
question. The applicant contends that the additional rater's comment in
Section VI of the contested report, that states "...her leadership and
followership skills need improvement" is referral in nature and the report
should have been referred to her a second time. However, after a thorough
review of the evidence presented, it is our opinion that the aforementioned
comment is in fact not referral in nature, but it appears to be merely a
reemphasis of the comments made by the rater.
4. Notwithstanding the above, sufficient relevant evidence has been
presented to demonstrate the existence of an error with respect to the
Promotion Recommendation contained in the report. It appears that the
report was initially referred to the applicant with a "4" marked as the
Promotion Recommendation. However, when the report was finalized the final
rating was "3." We agree with the Air Force's determination that since the
rater and additional rater's original markings were "4" prior to being
provided incorrect information, the fairest and most equitable resolution
would be to correct the report to reflect a rating of "4." Therefore, we
recommend her 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 as follows: AF Form 910, Enlisted Performance
Report, rendered for the period 10 November 2001 through 12 September 2002,
amend in Section IV, Promotion Recommendation, to reflect that a rating of
"4" was rendered by the rater and additional rater, rather than a rating of
"3."
_________________________________________________________________
The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2004-
00637 in Executive Session on 6 May 04, under the provisions of AFI 36-
2603:
Mr. Laurence M. Groner, Panel Chair
Ms. Deborah A. Erickson, Member
Ms. Sharon B. Seymour, Member
All members voted to correct the records, as recommended. The following
documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 12 Nov 03, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPPPE, dated 26 Mar 04, w/atchs.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 2 Apr 04.
LAURENCE M. GRONER
Panel Chair
AFBCMR BC-2004-00637
MEMORANDUM FOR THE CHIEF OF STAFF
Having received and considered the recommendation of the Air Force
Board for Correction of 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 APPLICANT, be corrected to show that the AF Form 910, Enlisted
Performance Report, rendered for the period 10 November 2001 through 12
September 2002, be amended in Section IV, Promotion Recommendation, to
reflect that a rating of "4" was rendered by the rater and additional
rater, rather than a rating of "3."
JOE G. LINEBERGER
Director
Air Force Review Boards Agency
Applicant’s complete submission is attached at Exhibit A. On 30 Sep 99, applicant’s supervisor did not recommend her for reenlistment due to the referral EPR. A complete copy of the their evaluation, with attachments, is attached at Exhibit D. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Applicant reviewed the Air Force evaluations and provided a five-page letter responding to the advisory opinions.
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...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2004-03357
CLOSING DATE OVERALL EVALUATION 31 Dec 03 5 31 Dec 02 5 31 Dec 01 4 (Contested) 15 Nov 00 5 31 Dec 99 5 1 May 99 5 1 May 98 5 1 May 97 5 1 May 96 5 1 May 95 5 The applicant filed a similar appeal under the provisions of AFI 36- 2401. He further contended he had only 48 days of supervision with the rater of the 31 Dec 01 EPR, and that the closeout date was changed from 15 Nov 01 to 31 Dec 01. If the applicant received a new rater in Jul 01 as the Air Force asserts, then the EPR’s reporting...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2004-02755
A complete copy of the evaluation is attached at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR STAFF EVALUATION: The applicant reviewed the Air Force evaluation and states he did file an IG complaint, which he included with his application. However, based on the applicant’s previous and subsequent performance reports,the performance feedback he received prior to the contested report, and the letter from the rater of the contested...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-01996
She further indicates if her rating was based on counselings she received then her rating should be changed. _________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: On 30 June 1999, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force. The applicant has failed to provide any information/support from the rating chain on the contested EPR.
Copies of the EPRs are provided at Exhibit B. The ERAB indicated the applicant was found guilty of disturbing the peace and fined by a civilian court system after pleading no contest and no inappropriate comments were found on the report. The EPR states the applicant improved his conduct “after off-duty civil criminal conviction of ‘disturbing the peace.’” The applicant did plead nolo contendre in civilian court on 2 Aug 99 to a charge of disturbing the peace, which did, in fact, result in...
AF | BCMR | CY2002 | BC-2002-02982
On 1 December 1997, the applicant submitted an appeal to the Evaluation Reports Appeal Board (ERAB) requesting her EPR for the period 11 January 1999 through 15 September 1999 be upgraded from an overall “4” to an overall “5.” On 21 September 2000, the ERAB notified the applicant’s military personnel office that her appeal was considered and denied. The AFPC/DPPPWB evaluation is at Exhibit D. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-02982
On 1 December 1997, the applicant submitted an appeal to the Evaluation Reports Appeal Board (ERAB) requesting her EPR for the period 11 January 1999 through 15 September 1999 be upgraded from an overall “4” to an overall “5.” On 21 September 2000, the ERAB notified the applicant’s military personnel office that her appeal was considered and denied. The AFPC/DPPPWB evaluation is at Exhibit D. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE...
_________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Chief, Evaluation Programs Branch, AFPC/DPPPE, reviewed this application and indicated that applicant has no support from the wing commander (and additional rater on the OPR) or either of the senior raters that prepared the contested PRFs (Note: The senior rater that prepared the CY96B PRF was also the reviewer of the contested OPR). A complete copy of their evaluation, with attachments, is...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-03142
However, on 27 Aug 01, the squadron commander reported to the Wing IG he was considering removing the applicant as NCOIC of the Hydraulics shop because he was inciting his personnel over the manning issue and continuing to complain about it outside the rating chain. The complete evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit D. AFPC/JA recommends the LOR administered to the applicant on 25 Mar 02, the EPR rendered on him closing 19 Jul 02, and the AF Form 418 be voided and removed from his...