RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2005-01021
INDEX CODE: 111.02
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 26 SEPTEMBER 2006
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
The Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) rendered for the period 13 June
2003 through 12 June 2004 be declared void and removed from his
records.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
The ratings in Section III were not consistent with verbal feedback
conducted between the rater and the ratee during the reporting period.
In support of the appeal, applicant submits a copy of the contested
report, a personal statement, a statement from the rater of the
contested report, a copy of his performance feedback worksheet, and a
copy of his last two EPRs.
Applicant's complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The applicant is currently serving in the Regular Air Force in the
grade of master sergeant.
EPR profile since 1997 reflects the following:
PERIOD ENDING PROMOTION RECOMMENDATION
12 Jun 97 5
12 Jun 98 5
12 Jun 98 5
12 Jun 00 5
12 Jun 01 5
12 Jun 02 5
12 Jun 03 5
*12 Jun 04 5
* Contested Report
The applicant filed an appeal with the Evaluation Reports Appeal Board
(ERAB). The ERAB denied his request.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
AFPC/DPPPE states that although the Performance Feedback Worksheet
(PFW) and EPR go hand in hand, each serves a distinctly different
purpose. Feedback forms are designed to explain duty performance
requirements and responsibilities, establish expectations, and tell
ratees if they are performing as expected. EPRs actually document
ratee’s performance and promotion potential. The EPR is where raters
will document and rate performance and promotion potential, which will
become a permanent part of the ratee’s record. Ratings are not
erroneous or unjust because they are inconsistent with previous
ratings or in this case feedback. A report evaluates performance
during a specific period and reflects the ratee’s performance,
conduct, and potential at that time, in that position. A direct
correlation between information provided during feedback session, and
the assessments on evaluation reports does not necessarily exist.
Due to the fact that the senior rater signature block and indorsements
were omitted after the final draft EPR was signed by the rater and the
original rater’s rater prior to close out; it is noted the word final
means the report has been updated in MilPDS and included in the
Selection Folder maintained at AFPC. A draft copy is just that--a
draft. Changes can be made to the draft copy of a report, regardless
of what the change is. Senior Rater indorsement is not a mandatory
requirement; therefore, it is up to the senior rater to decide if he
will sign or not. Once the senior rater decides not to sign the
report, it is then decided whether the deputy, intermediate or lower
level will sign as the reviewer. Even if the rater drafted comments
for the senior rater, the senior rater could have elected not to sign
and pass it down to the next level and so forth. However, there is
nothing from the rating chain stating that not getting the senior
rater indorsement was an error.
The first time the contested report was used in the promotion process
was cycle 05E8 (promotions effective April 2005 - March 2006). The
applicant’s total score was 497.68, with a board score of 277.50. The
total score required for promotion in his AFSC was 645.66 (a
difference of 147.98). Supplemental promotion consideration is
granted on a case-by-case basis. A member will not normally be
granted supplemental consideration if the error or omission appeared
on his/her Data Verification Record (DVR) or in the Unit Personnel
Record Group (UPRG) and the individual did not take the appropriate
corrective or follow up action before the original board convened.
The purpose of this change is to reduce the number of after the fact
changes that are initiated in an effort to get a second opportunity
for promotion. Therefore, they recommend denial of applicant’s
request.
A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit C.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
On 13 May 2005, a copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to
the applicant for review and response within 30 days. As of this
date, no response has been received by this office.
_________________________________________________________________
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
and adopt their rationale as the basis for the conclusion that the
applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice. The
applicant has provided no evidence showing the information in his
records is erroneous, his substantial rights were violated, or his
commanders abused their discretionary authority. Therefore, in the
absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no 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 this application in
Executive Session on 25 August 2005 and 12 September 2005, under the
provisions of AFI 36-2603:
Mr. Gregory H. Petkoff, Panel Chair
Ms. Jean A. Reynolds, Member
Ms. Sharon B. Seymour, Member
The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket Number
BC-2005-01021 was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 15 Mar 05, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPPPE, dated 6 May 05.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 13 May 05.
GREGORY H. PETKOFF
Panel Chair
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...
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 | CY2003 | BC-2003-01201
The complete evaluation is at Exhibit D. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant responded to the Air Force evaluations by reiterating the reasons he believes the SR endorsement on his contested report does not provide an honest, fair, or accurate description and characterization of his performance, achievements, and promotion potential during the respective reporting period. The senior rater endorsement is...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-01921
_________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPPPE recommends denial of the applicant’s request to void his EPR closing 26 Oct 99. The applicant stated in his appeal to the ERAB that the policy on reviewing EPRs required General R____ to perform a quality check. The complete evaluation is at Exhibit D. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant responded to the...
Rather than closing out the report, the commander removed the rater’s name from the reporting official block, assumed the duties of his reporting official, and submitted the report as if he had been his (applicant’s) supervisor for the previous 332 days. However, if the Board recommends removing the report, the applicant will be entitled to supplemental promotion consideration beginning with the 99E8 cycle, provided he is recommended by the commander and is otherwise eligible. A complete...
The applicant’s board score for the 99E8 board was 397.50. The applicant did provide a letter of recommendation from the commander supporting the upgrading of the EPR ratings and changes to his original comments. It is unreasonable to conclude the commander now, over 10 years later, has a better understanding of the applicant’s duty performance for that time period.
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...
_________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Chief, Inquiries/AFBCMR Section, Enlisted Promotion & Military Testing Branch, HQ AFPC/DPPPWB, reviewed this application and states that the first time the contested report was considered in the promotion process was cycle 95E6 to technical sergeant (promotions effective August 95 - July 1996). A complete copy of the evaluation is attached at Exhibit C. The Chief, Promotion, Evaluation and...
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...