RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2004-1301
INDEX CODE:
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) closing 9 Apr 03, be removed from his
records.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
The EPR was written as retribution from his rater. His rater believed that
the applicant needed to rate his subordinate higher on his EPR. The EPR
contains comments of duties he never performed and off-duty accomplishments
he was never involved in. In addition, the dates indicated on the EPR as
the dates of initial or mid-term feedback were falsified, as feedback was
never performed.
In support of his request, applicant provided documentation associated with
his Evaluation Reports Appeal Board (ERAB) appeal. His complete
submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
Applicant contracted his initial enlistment in the Regular Air Force on 10
Aug 95. He has been progressively promoted to the grade of staff sergeant,
having assumed that grade effective and with a date of rank of 1 Jul 00.
On 22 Jul 03, the ERAB denied the applicant's request for removal of the
contested EPR.
The following is a resume of the applicant's recent EPR profile:
PERIOD ENDING PROMOTION RECOMMENDATION
09 Apr 04 5
09 Apr 03 4 - Contested Report
09 Apr 02 5
09 Apr 01 5
09 Apr 00 5
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
AFPC/DPPPE recommends denial. DPPPE states the applicant should provide an
official investigation report substantiating the rater was biased and wrote
the EPR with retribution. He provided email traffic showing the
disagreement concerning the rating of a subordinate’s EPR was discussed.
The rater voiced his concerns with the applicant and the decision was made
for the applicant to rate the subordinate as he felt necessary. The emails
did not show any form of coercion. In fact, the last email traffic states,
"Now write whatever you decide and send it through proper channels..." The
disagreement followed the proper procedures established in AFI 36-2406. He
did not provide proof that feedback was not accomplished. While documented
feedback sessions are required, they do not replace informal day-to-day
feedback. A rater’s failure to conduct a required feedback will not
invalidate any subsequent performance report. An email did take place from
the rater to the applicant, stating a conversation did take place
concerning what the applicant needed to do.
An evaluation report is accurate as written when it becomes a matter of
record. He did not provide any evidence the report is inaccurate or
written with bias. The fact that there may have been disagreements on the
rating of a subordinate’s report does not mean the rater was unable to
provide his own fair and accurate assessment. The DPPPE evaluation is at
Exhibit C.
AFPC/DPPPWB states should the EPR be removed, the applicant will receive
supplemental promotion consideration for promotion cycle 04E6. The DPPPWB
evaluation is at Exhibit D.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on 4
Jun 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. After reviewing all the evidence
provided, we are not persuaded that the contested report is an inaccurate
depiction of the applicant's performance and demonstrated potential for the
period in question. In the rating process, each evaluator is required to
assess a ratee's performance, honestly and to the best of their ability.
In judging the merits of this case we took note of the applicant's
contentions; however, based on the documentation provided, we are not
persuaded that the contested report was written as retribution. We find no
evidence of coercion on the part of his supervisor nor do we find evidence
of any improprieties in the preparation of the EPR. Therefore, we agree
with the opinion and recommendation of the Air Force and adopt their
rationale as the basis for our conclusion that he has not been the victim
of an error or injustice. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, we
find no compelling basis to recommend granting the relief sought in this
application.
_________________________________________________________________
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-2004-
01301 in Executive Session on 27 Jul 04, under the provisions of AFI 36-
2603:
Ms. Cathlynn B. Sparks, Panel Chair
Ms. Renee M. Collier, Member
Mrs. Barbara R. Murray, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 16 Apr 04, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPPPE, dated 4 May 04.
Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/DPPPWB, dated 10 May 04.
Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 4 Jun 04.
CATHLYNN B. SPARKS
Panel Chair
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...
Regardless, at best, this would be an administrative error and not justification for voiding the report.” While the applicant contends that he was not given feedback during the contested reporting period, only members in the rating chain can confirm if counseling was provided. DPPPAB disagrees and states that AFR 39- 62 (paragraph 2-25) defines a referral report as an EPR with a rating in the far left block of any performance factor in Section III (Evaluation of Performance) and a rating of...
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 | CY2003 | BC-2003-02200
The applicant’s request under AFI 36-2401 to have the contested EPR removed from his records was denied by the ERAB. _________________________________________________________________ The following members of the Board considered Docket Number BC-2003-02200 in Executive Session on 8 October 2003, under the provisions of AFI 36- 2603: Mr. Thomas S. Markiewicz, Chair Ms. Martha Maust, Member Mr. Michael V. Barbino, Member By majority vote, the Board voted to deny the application. Exhibit B.
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-2002-02758
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 | CY2009 | BC-2009-00541
If there was a personality conflict between the applicant and the rater which was of such magnitude the rater could not be objective, the additional rater, or even the first sergeant and commander would have been aware of the situation and would have made any necessary adjustments to the applicants EPR; or at least supported the applicants appeal request. However, the applicant did not provide any statements from other applicable evaluators. Evaluators must confirm they did not provide...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-01789
In support of his request applicant submits a personal statement; a copy of his application to the Evaluation Reports Appeal Board (ERAB); supporting emails from the rater and former commander; copy of contested EPR (2 April 2001 - 1 April 2002); a copy of the reaccomplished EPR; copies of his performance feedback worksheet for the periods 30 August 2001 and 11 February 2002; and, copies of his EPRs for the periods ending 1 April 2003 and 1 April 2004. The AFPC/DPPPE evaluation is at...
Although the applicant did not submit a request to remove the EPR until after the convening of the 00E9 Evaluation Board, DPPPWB believes the circumstances of his case would warrant supplemental promotion consideration if the Board approves his request. A complete copy of their evaluation is attached at Exhibit D. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR STAFF EVALUATION: Complete copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to...