RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2005-01175
INDEX NUMBER: 131.00
XXXXXXX COUNSEL: NONE
XXXXXXX HEARING DESIRED: NO
MANDTORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 6 OCTOBER 2006
___________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
The Enlisted Performance Report, (EPR), rendered for the period
2 July 2003 through 1 July 2004, be declared void and removed from
her records.
___________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
All personnel in her chain of command have knowledge of her
request. On 23 August 2004, she was provided a copy of her 1 July
2004 EPR from the military personnel flight (MPF). She strongly
feels this EPR is not an accurate reflection of her performance for
the rating period of 2 July 2003 through 1 July 2004. There are
significant discrepancies between her feedback and EPR. Her only
feedback, dated 14 May 2004, was marked as an initial feedback. It
was accomplished seven weeks prior to the closeout of her EPR. Her
personal information file (PIF) was misplaced before her EPR was
signed by TSgt H__ on 15 July 2004 and by Lt Col H__ on 16 July
2004. Her EPR should not have been processed until all available
resources had been exhausted to justify this rating.
In support of her appeal, applicant has provided a personal letter,
letters of support, a copy of her latest performance report, a copy
of her feedback worksheet, copies of EPRs, emails and work
procedures, excerpts from AFI 36-2406, Officer and Enlisted
Evaluation Systems and a copy of her appeal package filed under AFI
36-2401.
Applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.
___________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
Applicant is currently serving in the Regular Air Force in the
grade of staff sergeant.
On 16 September 2004, the applicant applied under the provision of
AFI 36-2401 to have the contested EPR removed from her records;
however, on 22 October 2004, the Evaluation Reports Appeal Board
(ERAB) denied her request.
EPR profile since 1999 reflects the following:
PERIOD ENDING OVERALL EVALUATION
22 Jun 99 4
09 May 00 5
14 Feb 01 5
15 Aug 01 5
01 Jul 02 5
01 Jul 03 5
* 01 Jul 04 3
* Contested report.
The first cycle the contested EPR was used in the promotion process
was cycle 05E6 to technical sergeant (promotions effective August
2005-July 2006).
___________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
AFPC/DPPPEP recommends denial and states a report evaluates
performance during a specific period and reflects her performance,
conduct, and potential at that time, in that position. An ability
to function well in one position at a given time may change in
another job at another time. Sometimes an individual can stay in
the same job and change in supervision will produce a change in
performance standards which, depending on how well the individual
adapts, could cause a marked change in the next report. The
Evaluation Reports Appeal Board will not approve requests to void
reports simply because they are inconsistent with other evaluation
reports.
AFPC/DPPPEP complete 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 1 June 2005, 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 an error or injustice that would
warrant removal of the contested report. Applicant contends that
her EPR should not have been processed until all available
resources had been exhausted to justify her rating. Her
contentions are duly noted; however, we do not find her
uncorroborated assertions, in and by themselves, sufficiently
persuasive to override the evidence of record and the rationale
provided by the Air Force. We are not convinced by the evidence
she provided in support of her appeal, that the contested report is
not a true and accurate assessment of her performance during the
specified time period or that the report was not processed in
accordance with regulations in effect at the time. Therefore, we
agree with the opinions and recommendation of the Air Force office
of primary responsibility and adopt its rationale as the basis for
our conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of an
error or injustice. In the absence of persuasive 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-2005-01175 in Executive Session on 7 July 2005, under the
provisions of AFI 36-2603:
Mr. Richard A. Peterson, Panel Chair
Mr. James W. Russell III, Member
Ms. Sue A. Lumpkins, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 24 Mar 05, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPPPEP, dated 27 May 05.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 1 Jun 05.
RICHARD A. PETERSON
Panel Chair
___________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Enlisted Promotion and Military Testing Branch, AFPC/DPPPWB, states that if the Board removes the referral EPR as requested, the applicant will be entitled to supplemental promotion consideration for the 00E7 cycle provided he is otherwise qualified and recommended by his commander. Because the applicant’s last EPR was referral closing 1 June 1999 (he did not receive his next EPR until 5 June...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-00448
While current Air Force policy requires performance feedback for personnel, a direct correlation between information provided during feedback sessions and the assessments on evaluation reports does not necessarily exist. Evaluators must confirm they did not provide counseling or feedback, and that this directly resulted in an unfair evaluation. AFPC/DPPPEP's complete evaluation is at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-01081
DPPPEP states the applicant filed two appeals under the provisions of AFI 36-2401, Correcting Officer and Enlisted Reports. Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 6 May 05. CHRISTOPHER D. CAREY Panel Chair AFBCMR BC-2005-01081 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...
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2007-01970
_________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPPPEP recommends denial of the applicant’s request to void his EPR or change the promotion recommendation. An incorrect feedback date and administrative corrections to an evaluator’s signature date after the close-out date of the report are not grounds for, nor warrant voiding an EPR. Concerning the feedback date on the contested EPR, we note that AFPC administratively corrected the applicant’s...
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 | CY2006 | BC-2006-01716
In support of her request, the applicant provided a personal statement, copy of statement Reason for Appeal of Referral EPR, AF IMT Form 910 Enlisted Performance Report, a Rebuttal to Referral Report Memorandum, a Letter of Appreciation, AF Form IMT 931, Performance Feedback Worksheet, five Letters of Recommendation and excerpts from her military personnel records. On 3 October 2005, an unsigned copy of the referral EPR dated 30 September 2005 was presented to her. After reviewing the...
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2006-03769
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2006-03769 INDEX CODE: 111.02 XXXXXXX COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 15 JUN 2008 ___________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His rating on his Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) closing 19 May 2006, be changed from an overall “4” to a “5”; the endorsement level be upgraded to “Senior Rater Deputy”...
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2007-00777
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2007-00777 INDEX CODE: 111.05 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES MANDATORY COMPLETION DATE: 14 OCTOBER 2008 _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) for the period 30 Jul 2001 thru 29 Jul 2002 be amended or removed from his records. DPPPEP states the applicant did not file an appeal under the...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-01161
___________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: Applicant states that no documented evidence exists that his performance had been anything less than exceptional. With the exception of the contested EPR closing 25 January 2000, applicant’s performance report from 1992 reflect an overall rating of “5”. ___________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPPPEP reviewed this application and indicates that...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-02059
The applicant filed an appeal under the provisions of AFI 36-2401, Correcting Officer and Enlisted Evaluation Reports. A complete copy of the 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 18 Aug 06 for review and comment within 30 days. MARILYN M. THOMAS Vice Chair AFBCMR BC-2006-03059 MEMORANDUM FOR THE CHIEF OF STAFF Having...