RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2005-00492
INDEX NUMBER: 131.00
XXXXXXX COUNSEL: NONE
XXXXXXX HEARING DESIRED: NO
MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 15 Aug 06
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
The Enlisted Performance Report (EPR), closing 16 January 1997, be removed
from her records.
_________________________________________________________________
THE APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
The indorser of the contested report was incapable of rendering a fair and
unbiased evaluation of her performance due to her involvement in her
personal affairs.
The applicant states that after a documented incident of spousal abuse
during the period of the contested report, her estranged (now ex) husband
resided with the indorser for a period of no less than three months.
During this period the indorser encouraged reconciliation, habitually
discussed the relationship within the office, and created a hostile work
environment. After it was evident no reconciliation would occur, the
hostility increased.
In support of the appeal, applicant submits a copy of her submission to the
Evaluation Reports Appeals Board (ERAB).
Applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
Applicant is currently serving on active duty in the grade of master
sergeant (E-7).
The applicant submitted a similar request under AFI 36-2401 which was
denied by the ERAB on 10 February 1999.
Applicant’s performance profile follows:
PERIOD ENDING OVERALL RATING
16 Jan 95 5
16 Jan 96 5
* 16 Jan 97 4 (downgraded by indorser)
12 Jul 97 5
12 Jul 98 5
28 Apr 99 5
28 Apr 00 5
28 Apr 01 5
28 Apr 02 5
14 Nov 02 5
14 Nov 03 5
30 Sep 04 5
* Contested EPR
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
AFPC/DPPPE recommends the application be denied and states, in part, that
there is no documentation to support her claim the evaluators were unable
to provide a fair and objective assessment. Applicant has not provided
statements from the evaluators. The only support she provides is an e-mail
from a coworker that worked next to her. In order to establish an
evaluator was unfavorably biased, there must be specific examples of the
bias and how this bias action prevented the evaluator from preparing a fair
and accurate report. AFPC/DPPPE questions why the applicant did not report
any of the situations to the appropriate authorities, including her chain
of command.
The AFPC/DPPPE evaluation is at Exhibit C.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant
on 18 March 2005; however, as of this date, no response has been received.
_________________________________________________________________
THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:
1. The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by existing law or
regulations.
2. The application was not timely filed; however, it is in the interest of
justice to excuse the failure to timely file.
3. Sufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the
existence of error or injustice. After thoroughly reviewing the evidence
of record and applicant’s complete submission, we believe the indorser of
the contested report was incapable of rendering a fair and unbiased
evaluation of the applicant’s performance during the period of the
contested report due to her involvement in the applicant’s personal
affairs. In this respect, as attested to by a fellow Noncommissioned
Officer (NCO), during the rating period, the applicant’s estranged (now ex)
husband resided with the indorser for a period of no less than three
months, after a documented incident of spousal abuse. The applicant
contends that during this period, the indorser encouraged reconciliation
and habitually discussed the relationship within the office, which created
a hostile work environment. Although statements from the rating officials
have not been provided, given the indorser’s involvement in the applicant’s
personal affairs and in view of the applicant’s otherwise outstanding
record of performance, we believe any doubt should be resolved in her
behalf. In arriving at our decision, we also note the contested report is
the lowest rating the applicant has received during her career and the
indorser does not adequately justify her actions by providing specific
comments concerning the applicant’s off duty conduct and attitude.
Therefore, we recommend the contested report be removed from her records.
The report was first used for promotion consideration during cycle 98E6 and
she was initially nonselected; however, due to the addition an Air Force
Achievement Medal (AFAM) she was supplementally considered for promotion to
the grade of technical sergeant and selected. The next time the report was
used for promotion consideration was cycle 01E7. In view of this, we also
recommend she be provided supplemental promotion consideration to the grade
of master sergeant for all appropriate cycles beginning with cycle 01E7.
_________________________________________________________________
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT:
The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating
to APPLICANT be corrected to show that the Enlisted Performance Report, AF
Form 910, rendered for the period 17 January 1996 through 16 January 1997,
be declared void and removed from her records.
It is further recommended that she be provided supplemental consideration
for promotion to the grade of master sergeant for all appropriate cycles
beginning with cycle 01E7.
If selected for promotion to the grade of master sergeant by supplemental
consideration, she be provided any additional supplemental consideration
required as a result of that selection.
If AFPC discovers any adverse factors during or subsequent to supplemental
consideration that are separate and apart, and unrelated to the issues
involved in this application, that would have rendered her ineligible for
the promotion, such information will be documented and presented to the
board for a final determination on her qualification for the promotion.
_________________________________________________________________
The following members of the Board considered Docket Number BC-2005-00492
in Executive Session on 10 May 2005, 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 5 Jan 05, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPPPE, dated 2 Mar 05.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 18 Mar 05.
CATHLYNN B. SPARKS
Panel Chair
AFBCMR BC-2005-00492
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 XXXXXXX, XXXXXXX, be corrected to show that the Enlisted
Performance Report, AF Form 910, rendered for the period 17 January 1996
through 16 January 1997, be, and hereby is, declared void and removed from
her records.
It is further directed that she be provided supplemental
consideration for promotion to the grade of master sergeant for all
appropriate cycles beginning with cycle 01E7.
If selected for promotion to the grade of master sergeant by
supplemental consideration, she be provided any additional supplemental
consideration required as a result of that selection.
If AFPC discovers any adverse factors during or subsequent to
supplemental consideration that are separate and apart, and unrelated to
the issues involved in this application, that would have rendered her
ineligible for the promotion, such information will be documented and
presented to the board for a final determination on her qualification for
the promotion.
JOE G. LINEBERGER
Director
Air Force Review Boards Agency
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-02406
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 02-02406 INDEX CODE: 111.02 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: The Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) rendered for the period 29 January 2000 through 28 January 2001 be declared void and replaced with a reaccomplished report. ...
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-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,...
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.
Both the commander and the indorser provide information on why although they originally supported the rating given the applicant, later determined that it was not a fair or objective evaluation. The complete evaluation is at Exhibit D. _______________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant responded to the Air Force evaluations. Exhibit F. Memorandum, Applicant, dated 15 Nov 01.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 01-01882 INDEX CODE: 111.02 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: The Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) rendered for the period 25 Mar 99 through 24 Mar 00 be declared void and removed from her records. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Chief,...
A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation, with attachments, is attached at Exhibit C. The Chief, Inquiries/AFBCMR Section, Enlisted Promotion and Military Testing Branch, AFPC/DPPPWB, also reviewed this application and states that the first time the report was considered in the promotion process was cycle 99E8 to senior master sergeant (promotions effective April 1999 - March 2000). A copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-02670
However, a Letter of Evaluation (LOE) does not contain ratings. Although the applicant worked in different sections, his rater remained TSgt C__ and there was no proof provided to show TSgt C__ was not able to provide a fair assessment on the individual. AFPC/DPPPE’s complete evaluation is at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Applicant reviewed the Air Force evaluation and asks the Board to please accept...
However, based on the supporting statement from the former MPF chief and the superior ratings the applicant has received before and since, the majority of the Board believes the possibility exists that the contested EPR may be flawed. Therefore, in order to offset the possibility of an injustice, the Board majority concludes that any doubt should be resolved in this applicant’s favor by voiding the 31 Jul 99 EPR from his records and granting him supplemental promotion consideration. ...
_________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: His EPR should be removed from his records because the rater signed a blank form and the rater did not intend to give him an overall rating of “4.” In support of his request applicant submits a copy of the contested EPR; personal statements from the rater and indorser; a copy of the Evaluation Reports Appeal Board (ERAB) decision; and an AF Form 931, Performance Feedback Worksheet. The following is a...