RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2005-00334
INDEX NUMBER: 111.00
XXXXXXX COUNSEL: None
XXXXXXX HEARING DESIRED: No
MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 26 Jul 06
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
An Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) prepared on him for the period 4
Oct 02 through 6 Mar 03 be accepted for file in his official record.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
He should have had an EPR prepared on him for the period 4 Oct 02
through 6 Mar 03, but did not because an erroneous change of reporting
official was processed in the personnel system and precluded his
reporting official from writing the report.
Significant events occurred during the period of the contested report
and were never documented.
He believes requests for change of reporting official were input on
him to preclude having to write an EPR with less than 12 months of
supervision. While the EPR on file, closing 3 Oct 03, overlaps with
the period he is contesting, it does not correctly reflect his
accomplishments. He believes this EPR should start on the closeout
date of the missing report.
In support of his appeal, applicant provides a letter from his rater
during the contested period, a letter from his current section
commander, and the EPR he requests be added to his record.
The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit
A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The applicant is presently serving on active duty in the grade of
technical sergeant (TSgt). His Total Active Federal Military Service
Date is 16 Nov 84. A resume of his last ten EPRs follows:
Closeout Date Overall Rating
26 Apr 96 5
26 Apr 97 5
26 Apr 98 5
26 Apr 99 5
*03 Jan 00 4
15 Dec 00 5
15 Dec 01 5
03 Oct 02 5
03 Oct 03 5
03 Oct 04 5
* Referral EPR due to comments contained in the report
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
AFPC/DPPP recommends denial of the applicant’s request. During the
contested time period, applicant had at least two separate raters,
neither of which had the required 120 days of supervision to prepare
an EPR on him. While the EPR subsequently prepared on the applicant
did not include all of the accomplishments he felt were important, it
was his evaluators’ responsibility to prepare the report and include
those accomplishments they felt were vital during the period in the
space allotted. Further, although the applicant’s rater has provided
an EPR for the period in question, he clearly states that neither he
nor the other rater had the required 120 days of supervision necessary
to write a report. This invalidates the applicant’s request to have
the report added to his record.
They note that the applicant was a nonselect for promotion to master
sergeant (MSgt) during cycle 04E7 and missed promotion by less than
one point. If the new EPR were added to his record, he would be
entitled to supplemental promotion consideration for cycle 04E7 and
would increase his score sufficiently to become a selectee.
The complete 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 8
Apr 05 for review and comment within 30 days. To date, a response has
not been received.
_________________________________________________________________
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 took notice of the
applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of the case;
however, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of the Air
Force office of primary responsibility and adopt its rationale as the
primary basis for our conclusion that the applicant has not been the
victim of an error or injustice. Additionally, we note that the
letter submitted by the applicant’s previous rater fails to address
why a change of reporting official was submitted and does not confirm
it was his intent to render an EPR on the applicant. While it
appears the more prudent course of action would have been to, if
necessary, change the reporting official after 120 days, the action
did not violate Air Force policy. It is also not clear whether it
was known at the time of the change of reporting official the
applicant had an upcoming change of assignment. Therefore, 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 Docket Number BC-2005-
00334 in Executive Session on 10 May 05, under the provisions of AFI
36-2603:
Ms. Cathlynn B. Sparks, Panel Chair
Mr. Patrick C. Daugherty, Member
Ms. Marcia Jean Bachman, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 31 Jan 05, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Memorandum, AFPC/DPPP, dated 4 Apr 05.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 8 Apr 05.
CATHLYNN B. SPARKS
Panel Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-00514
In support of his request, the applicant submits a personal statement; a letter of support from his additional rater; and copies of the documentation surrounding his referral EPR and UIF; his application to the Evaluation Reports Appeal Board (ERAB); the ERAB decision; performance feedback worksheets; his APRs closing 20 December 2002, 9 February 2002, 9 February 2001, and 9 February 2000; award of the Air Force Commendation Medal; and an Air Combat Command Team Award. The additional rater...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-01818
DPF states her case file shows no evidence the applicant was directed to weigh-in regardless of her menstrual cycle prior to 10 February 2003; therefore, they recommend denial of her request to upgrade her EPR closing 25 January 2003. Accordingly, it is recommended the record should be corrected as indicated below. Exhibit H. Applicant’s Rebuttal, dated 8 Nov 05.
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2006-03204
Applicant states the evaluation of performance markings do not match up with the rater/additional rater's comments and promotion recommendation. 3.8.5.2 states do not suspense or require raters to submit signed/completed reports any earlier than five duty days after the close-out date. The applicant contends that he did not receive feedback and that neither the rater, nor the additional rater was his rater’s rater.
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-01890
_________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: HQ AFPC/DPPP recommends the application be denied. DPPP states that applications based on the fact that the ratee and his evaluators were geographically separated, or working on a different shift, require conclusive documentation show they had no valid basis on which to assess performance. Additionally, we note that the rater on the contested report was in the applicant’s rating chain on the preceding...
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...
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...
_________________________________________________________________ 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-2006-02414
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2006-02414 INDEX CODE: 111.02 XXXXXXX COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 15 FEB 2008 ___________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His enlisted performance report closing 13 Sep 05 be voided. ___________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: HQ AFPC/DPPPEP reviewed...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-01301
In addition, the dates indicated on the EPR as the dates of initial or mid-term feedback were falsified, as feedback was never performed. 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...
In reference to the applicant contending her rater did not directly supervise her for the number of days indicated on the report (140), Air Force policy, AFI 36-2403, paragraph 4.3.9.2, states that 120 days’ supervision are required before accomplishing an EPR, and only TDY or leave periods of 30 consecutive days or more are deducted from the number of days supervision. Therefore, based on the lack of evidence provided, they recommend denial of applicant’s request. Her EPR was written...