RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2005-02105
INDEX CODE: 111.02
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 4 JANUARY 2007
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His Enlisted Performance Report (EPR), rendered for the period
11 August 2003 through 10 August 2004, be declared void and removed
from his records.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
His ratings were based on a false rape charge, which was eventually
dismissed. The contested report is unjust because it has now become
the vehicle by which he is being punished for a crime he did not
commit and has been cleared. He is unable to get PCS orders with the
referral EPR as his most recent evaluation and it has cost him the
ability to be promoted. The contested report is a lasting reminder of
how a false allegation can ruin a career and a life.
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. The applicant’s
complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
Information extracted from the Military Personnel Data System (MilPDS)
reveals the applicant’s Total Active Federal Military Service Date
(TAFMSD) as 11 December 2001. He is currently serving on active duty
in the grade of senior airman (E-4), with an effective date and date
of rank of 10 August 2005.
Applicant's Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) profile follows:
Period Ending Evaluation
10 Aug 03 5 – Immediate Promotion
*10 Aug 04 2 – Not Recommended This Time
10 Aug 05 4 - Ready
* Contested report
Information extracted from applicant’s submission indicates that, on
11 April 2005, he was informed of a rape charge, on or about 28 March
2004. Summary Court-Martial charges were preferred and an Article 32
Hearing was convened on 13 April 2005. Following the Article 32
Hearing, the investigating officer recommended withdrawal of the sole
charge and it was dismissed on 4 May 2005.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
HQ AFPC/DPPP recommends the application be denied. DPPP states the
contested report does not allude to the applicant being accused of
rape; however, it does contain comments concerning other infractions,
which he admits in his rebuttal to the referral EPR. As to the
applicant’s last feedback, there may be times when, after a positive
feedback session, an evaluator discovers serious problems, he must
record the problems in the evaluation report even when it may disagree
with the previous positive feedback given. While it would have been a
“courtesy” for the rater to discuss any suggested ways for the
applicant to possibly improve, the governing instruction does not
mandate that he was required to do so. The HQ AFPC/PPP evaluation is
at Exhibit C.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to applicant on 19
August 2005 for review and response. As of this date, no response has
been received by this office (Exhibit D).
_________________________________________________________________
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. After a thorough review of the
evidence of record and applicant’s submission, we are unpersuaded that
the contested EPR should be removed from his record. We have noted
the documents provided with the applicant’s submission. However, they
do not, in our opinion, support a finding that the evaluators were
unable to render unbiased evaluations of the applicant’s performance
or that the ratings on the contested report were based on factors
other than applicant’s duty performance during the contested rating
period. Evaluators are required to assess a ratee’s performance,
honestly and to the best of their ability, based on their observance
of an individual’s performance. Additionally, we found no evidence
that the contested report was prepared contrary to the governing Air
Force Instruction. In view of the foregoing and in the absence of
sufficient 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 17 November 2005, under the provisions of AFI 36-
2603:
Mr. James W. Russell III, Panel Chair
Ms. LeLoy W. Cottrell, Member
Ms. Kathleen B. O’Sullivan, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered in connection with
AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2005-02105.
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 23 Jun 05, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPP, dated 12 Aug 05.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 19 Aug 05.
JAMES W. RUSSELL III
Panel Chair
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-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 | CY2005 | BC-2005-02401
In support of his appeal, applicant submitted a personal statement; copies of his AF Forms 931, Performance Feedback Worksheet (AB thru TSGT), dated 14 May 03 and 28 Oct 03; contested EPR, closing 19 Dec 03, and letters of reference from co-workers and associates. However, he has not provided any statements from his rating chain nor official documentation (report of investigation from the IG or MEO) to prove the evaluation report is an inaccurate assessment of performance. Therefore, we...
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 | CY2005 | BC-2005-00635
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. In reference to the applicant’s claim that she was never afforded the opportunity to provide a rebuttal to the...
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...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-01816
By letter, dated 29 Nov 05, the applicant requested that his “Do Not Promote” PRFs also be removed from his records, and that he be provided SSB consideration based on the new information obtained from a CDI, which is attached at Exhibit E. By electronic mail (e-mail), dated 5 Dec 05, the applicant provided additional documentary evidence for the Board’s consideration, which is attached Exhibit F. _________________________________________________________________ ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-03819
The additional rater believes the applicant’s contention that the EPR in question was the result of a personality conflict based on her outstanding performance at the AFDRB. The report was also considered during cycle 05E6, but the applicant was not selected. An EPR profile from 1998 follows: PERIOD ENDING OVERALL EVALUATION 4 Nov 98 5 (Ft. Meade) 1 Dec 99 5 (Ft. Meade) 1 Dec 00 5 (Ft. Meade) 5 Aug 01 5 (Ft. Meade) 31 Mar 02 4 (Contested EPR-Ft. Meade) 31 Mar 03 5 (AFDRB) 31 Mar 04 5...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-02811
His performance to date did not warrant he be selected for reenlistment. On 7 Jan 05, the applicant’s commander concurred with the supervisor’s recommendation and nonselected him for reenlistment. At the end of the deferral period, the applicant received a letter stating his promotion had been placed in a withhold status because of his nonselection for reenlistment.
In support of his appeal, applicant provided copies of the contested report, a performance feedback worksheet received during the contested rating period, two prior evaluations and a subsequent evaluation, and a supporting statement from the rater on the contested report. DPPP stated that even though the EPR was written some 11 months after the closeout of the report, nothing is provided by the applicant or the evaluators to demonstrate that the comments contained in the EPR are inaccurate....