RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2005-00635
INDEX CODE: 111.02
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX COUNSEL: NONE
XXXXXXXXX HEARING DESIRED: NO
MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 23 August 2006
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
Her Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) rendered for the period of 7 June
2000 through 6 February 2002 be voided and removed from her records.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
The rater on her referral EPR was not her supervisor, performance feedback
was not conducted, and the report was not referred properly.
In support of her request, the applicant submits a personal statement. The
applicant’s complete submission, with attachment, is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
On 7 June 2000, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force at the age
of 19 in the grade of airman basic (E-1) for a period of four years. After
completing basic military training, she was trained as a surgical service
apprentice. The applicant was progressively promoted to the grade of
airman (E-2) effective and with a date of rank of 2 January 2002.
On 6 April 2001, the applicant received a Letter of Admonishment (LOA) for
failing a dormitory room inspection. On 2 January 2002, her commander
notified the applicant of his intent to impose disciplinary actions under
Article 15, Uniformed Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), for larceny. The
applicant acknowledged receipt, waived her right to a court-martial, waived
her right to an appearance, and submitted a written presentation. On
7 January 2002, after considering her written presentation, her commander
found the applicant did commit the alleged offense and imposed punishment
of reduction to the grade of airman basic (E-1) with a new date of rank of
2 January 2002 and forfeiture of $200 pay per month for two months,
suspended until 1 July 2002, after which time it was remitted without
further action. On 11 January 2002, the Deputy Staff Judge Advocate found
the file to be legally sufficient.
On 13 February 2002, the applicant received notification of a referral EPR
for the period 7 June 2000 through 6 February 2002. The applicant
acknowledged receipt; however, did not submit a rebuttal to the report.
On 6 June 2002, her commander notified the applicant that he was
recommending her for a general (under honorable conditions) discharge for
minor disciplinary infractions under AFPD 36-32 and AFI 36-3208, paragraph
5.49. On 6 June 2002, the applicant acknowledged receipt of the discharge
notification, waived her right to consult counsel and to submit a statement
in her own behalf. On 19 June 2002, the Staff Judge Advocate found the
case to be legally sufficient and recommended the applicant be discharged
with a general (under honorable conditions) discharge without probation and
rehabilitation. On 2 July 2002, the discharge authority approved the
recommended separation and directed that the applicant be discharged with a
general (under honorable conditions) discharge. The applicant was
discharged effective 19 July 2002. She served 2 years, 1 month and 13 days
on active duty.
On 26 August 2004, based on the applicant’s submission and the Air Force’s
recommendation, the Board directed the applicant’s records be corrected to
reflect she was awarded the Air Force Specialty Code R1 9A000 effective 17
May 2001 and she was promoted to the grade of airman first class (E-3)
effective and with a date of rank of 7 October 2001. In addition, the
applicant’s rank and grade at the time of the Article 15, UCMJ, imposed on
2 January 2002, were to be corrected to show she was airman first class (E-
3), rather than airman (E-2), and her reduction in rank and grade on 2
January 2002, as a result of the Article 15 nonjudicial punishment was
airman (E-2), rather than airman basic (E-1). As a result, a corrected DD
Form 214 was issued to the applicant on 14 September 2004, reflecting the
directed corrections.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
AFPC/DPPP recommends denial of the applicant’s request to void her EPR
closing on 6 February 2002. DPPP states the Air Force does not require the
designated rater to be the immediate supervisor. The commander is
responsible for ensuring the correct rater accomplishes the report before
he/she signs it. It is DPPP’s opinion that the applicant has failed to
provide supporting documentation to support her claim that the rater who
signed her referral report was not her rater. In addition, she has failed
to provide support that feedback was not accomplished. DPPP states that
according to the contested report, feedback was accomplished on 5 December
2001. In reference to the applicant’s claim that she was never afforded
the opportunity to provide a rebuttal to the contested report, the evidence
of record shows the EPR was referred to the applicant on 13 February 2002
with her signature acknowledgment dated the same day. It is DPPP’s opinion
the applicant failed to provide any form of supporting documentation to
prove the contested EPR is inaccurate. The AFPC/DPPP evaluation, with
attachments, is at Exhibit C.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 15
April 2005, 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 probable error or injustice warranting favorable consideration
of the applicant’s request that the contested report be removed from her
records. The applicant asserts that the rater was not her supervisor,
performance feedback was not conducted, and the report was not referred
properly; however, we find no persuasive documentation was provided to
support these contentions. We note the comments provided by the Air Force
office of primary responsibility that the Air Force does not require a
member’s designated rater to be the immediate supervisor. Additionally,
although Air Force policy does require performance feedback for personnel,
a direct correlation between information provided during feedback and the
assessment on evaluation reports need not necessarily exist. Finally, the
applicant failed to provide evidence that the contested report was not
referred properly. We note the contested report was referred to the
applicant on 13 February 2002 and the applicant signed an acknowledgment of
the referral report on the same day. We concur with the Air Force office
of primary responsibility that the applicant was afforded her opportunity
to provide rebuttal comments. In view of the above and in the absence of
evidence showing the contested report is an inaccurate depiction of her
performance during the referent period, we agree with the opinion and
recommendation of the Air Force office of primary responsibility.
Accordingly, her request to set aside her EPR 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 this application in Executive
Session on 12 July 2005, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:
Mr. Thomas S. Markiewicz, Chair
Mr. Frederick R. Beaman III, Member
Ms. Dorothy P. Loeb, Member
The following documentary evidence for AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2005-00635
was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 2 Mar 04, w/atch.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPPP, dated 6 Apr 05.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 15 Apr 05.
THOMAS S. MARKIEWICZ
Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-02360
Her supervisor indicated on the report that feedback was provided, which is true; however, she was only provided an initial feedback. As a result when the additional rater reviewed he expedited his processing and assumed that the proper feedback had been provided based on the date of the feedback. This does not specify that the last performance feedback should be a mid-term feedback date which the applicant states she did not receive.
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-01229
The complete evaluation is at Exhibit D. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant states he provided a constructed cause in effect document for consideration to breakdown much of what took place leading up to, and during, the period in question. After reviewing the documentation provided by the applicant and the evidence of record, the Board finds no persuasive evidence showing that the applicant was...
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...
AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-03800
The applicant failed to provide any information or support from the rating chain of record on the contested report. The complete DPSID evaluation is at Exhibit D. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on 3 May 2013 for review and comment within 30 days (Exhibit D). Additionally, we note AFPC/DPSIMs recommendation to remove the 6 May 2011 Letter...
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 | CY2012 | BC-2011-04279
DPSID states the applicant did not file an appeal through the Evaluation Reports Appeal Board’s (ERAB) under the provisions of AFI 36-240l, Correcting Officer and Enlisted Evaluation Reports. DPSID states, that in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, the rater did follow all applicable policies and procedures in the preparation and completion of the contested evaluation. It appears the report was accomplished in direct accordance with applicable Air 4 Force instructions.
Except for the contested report and a 2 Dec 91 EPR having an overall rating of “4,” all of the applicant’s performance reports since Dec 90 have had overall ratings of “5.” Since the Article 15’s suspended reduction expired on 12 Aug 96, prior to the 31 Dec 96 Promotion Eligibility Cutoff Date (PECD) for promotion cycle 97E6, the Article 15 did not affect the applicant’s eligibility for promotion consideration to technical sergeant for that cycle. ...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-02105
In support of his request, the applicant submits a personal statement, copies of the contested EPR, with rebuttal, a letter from the numbered bomb wing commander dismissing the preferred charge and specification, the charge sheet, nomination for award, performance feedback worksheet (PFW) and a copy of his EPR closing 10 August 2003. Applicant's Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) profile follows: Period Ending Evaluation 10 Aug 03 5 – Immediate Promotion *10 Aug 04 2 – Not Recommended This...
The commander coerced her rater and withheld information from the endorser (squadron commander) and rater, creating an inaccurate evaluation of her performance. The AFPC/DPPP evaluation, with attachment, is at Exhibit C. AFPC/DPPPWB states that based on the applicant’s date of rank to staff sergeant, the first time she was considered for promotion to technical sergeant was cycle 02E6. THOMAS S. MARKIEWICZ Vice Chair AFBCMR 02-02518 MEMORANDUM FOR THE CHIEF OF STAFF Having received and...
The applicant contends the rater on the report was not actually his rater when the report closed out. In addition, neither the rater nor the applicant provided evidence as to why the rater signed both the report and the referral letter. The complete evaluation is at Exhibit D. ___________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION The applicant responded to the Air Force evaluation with another statement from his rater at the time of...