RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2005-02360
INDEX CODE: 111.02
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: YES
MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 30 Jan 07
________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
Her Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) rendered for the period 2 Nov 02
through 1 Nov 03, be removed from her records.
________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
There was a personality conflict between her rater and herself that
resulted in an EPR that was prepared without her having been provided any
feedback. Her supervisor indicated on the report that feedback was
provided, which is true; however, she was only provided an initial
feedback. During her initial feedback session there was a clear-cut
opinion that had been developed as evidence by her supervisor stating "you
are starting on a clean slate."
The report was prepared late. 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. She was later advised
that her rater initially attempted to provide her a referral report but the
additional rater talked her out of it because there was nothing to
substantiate a referral report.
After the relationship between her and her rater deteriorated to the point
where they refused to talk to each other and she asked the commander to
remove her to another section, but he refused to do so. Applicant believes
the report is in reprisal for speaking to the Inspector General about her
situation. Subsequent to her IG visit, the commander decided to remove her
to another squadron.
In support of her request, applicant provided a personal statement,
documentation associated with her Evaluation Reports Appeal Board (ERAB)
appeal, and supporting statements. Her complete submission, with
attachments, is at Exhibit A.
________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
Applicant contracted her initial enlistment in the Regular Air Force on 9
Apr 92. She has been progressively promoted to the grade of technical
sergeant, having assumed that grade effective and with a date of rank of 1
Nov 04.
The following is a resume of her recent EPR profile:
PERIOD ENDING PROMOTION RECOMMENDATION
12 Aug 05 5
01 Nov 04 5
01 Nov 03 4 (Contested Report)
01 Nov 02 5
01 Nov 01 5
________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
AFPC/DPPP recommends denial. DPPP states in worker-supervisor
relationships, some disagreements are likely to occur since a worker must
abide by a supervisor's policies and decisions. Personnel who do not
perform at expected standards or require close supervision may believe that
an evaluator is personally biased; however the conflict generated by this
personal attention is usually professional rather than personal. Although
she provided a memorandum from her additional rater, he can only recall the
situation in retrospect. Retrospective views will not overcome the
presumption that the initial assessment remains valid. If there was a
personality conflict of such magnitude the rater could not be objective,
the additional rater would have known about it since the EPR indicates the
rater and additional rater were assigned to the same location. The
additional rater would have made any necessary adjustments to the
applicant's EPR. She has not provided specific instances based on
firsthand observation which substantiates the relationship between her and
the rater was strained to the point an objective evaluation was impossible.
The EPR specifically requests information for the "last performance
feedback was accomplished on." This does not specify that the last
performance feedback should be a mid-term feedback date which the applicant
states she did not receive. While current Air Force policy requires
performance feedback, a direct correlation between the information provided
during feedback and the assessments on evaluation reports does not
necessarily exist. There may be occasions when feedback was not provided
during a reporting period. Lack of counseling or feedback, by itself, is
not sufficient to challenge the accuracy or justness of a report.
The DPPP 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 23 Sep
05 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 an error or injustice. We took notice of the applicant's
complete submission in judging the merits of the case; however, after a
thorough review of the evidence of record and her submission, we are not
persuaded that the EPR should be removed from her records. Her contentions
are duly noted; however, we do not find her assertions, in and by
themselves, sufficiently persuasive to override the rationale provided by
the Air Force. While we are willing to accept the possibility that the
relationship between the applicant and her rater may have been strained,
she has not provided evidence which would establish to our satisfaction
that she was incorrectly rated or that the report was based on anything
other than her rater's objective assessment of her performance. If she
were to provide such evidence, we would be willing to reconsider her
request. Regarding her contentions that the report should be removed
because she did not receive midterm feedback, we agree with the Air Force
that the absence of a midterm feedback session is not sufficient to justify
that a report is erroneous or unjust. Therefore, we agree with the opinion
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.
4. The applicant's case is adequately documented and it has not been shown
that a personal appearance with or without counsel will materially add to
our understanding of the issues involved. Therefore, the request for a
hearing 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 AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2005-
02360 in Executive Session on 25 Oct 05, under the provisions of AFI 36-
2603:
Mr. John B. Hennessey, Panel Chair
Ms. Janet I. Hassan, Member
Ms. LeLoy W. Cottrell, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 21 Jul 05, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPPP, dated 16 Sep 05.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 23 Sep 05.
JOHN B. HENNESSEY
Panel Chair
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 | 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 | CY2007 | BC-2007-00914
___________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: HQ AFPC/DPPPEP reviewed this application and recommended denial. ___________________________________________________________________ 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...
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...
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 | 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...
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-2012-02557
_________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: His rater did not provide him with a mid-term feedback and there is evidence to support that a personality conflict existed between him and his rater. He asked for feedback and notified his chain-of-command that he was not provided feedback. In the absence of any evidence of unfair treatment or injustice, DPSID finds that the ratings were given fairly and IAW all Air Force policies and procedures.
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2006-03455
________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: The contested EPR was a Change of Reporting Official (CRO) report covering 188 days of supervision for the period 3 April 2005 through 7 October 2005. To effectively challenge an EPR, it is necessary to hear from all members of the rating chain – not only for support, but also for clarification/explanation, and applicant has failed to provide any information/support from the rating chain on the contested...
AF | BCMR | CY2010 | BC-2010-00686
DPSIDEP states the applicant’s request for relief was denied by the Evaluation Reports Appeals Board (ERAB). The complete DPSIDEP evaluation is at Exhibit B. The applicant asserts that his supervisor included comments in his EPR that occurred outside of the rating period and that he was not provided initial or midterm feedback; however, he has not provided evidence which substantiates his claim.