RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2005-02401
INDEX CODE: 111.05
XXXXXXX COUNSEL: NONE
XXXXXXX HEARING DESIRED: NO
MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 2 FEB 2007
___________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His enlisted performance report (EPR) closing 19 Dec 2003 be
removed from his records.
___________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
The ratings on the front of the form do not match the comments on
the back, as well as the Performance Feedback that was conducted
during the reporting period.
He was told in writing that his ratings had the potential to be a
firewall “5”, but he had one issue with the supervisor that was
resolved and they moved on. He was told by his first sergeant that
the isolated incident was the primary force behind his ratings.
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.
Applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.
___________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
Applicant is currently serving on active duty in the grade of
technical sergeant with an effective date and date of rank of
1 Jul 04.
Applicant filed an appeal under the provisions of AFI 36-2401,
Correcting Officer and Enlisted Evaluation Reports, 20 Feb 04. On
8 Jul 04, the Evaluation Report Appeals Board (ERAB) denied his
request.
A resume of applicant’s enlisted performance reports (EPR) profile
follows:
PERIOD CLOSING OVERALL EVALUATION
31 Mar 99 5
31 Mar 00 5
31 Mar 01 5
31 Mar 02 5
31 Mar 03 5
* 19 Dec 03 4
15 Aug 04 5
* Contested EPR closing 19 Dec 03.
___________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
HQ AFPC/DPPP reviewed this application and recommended denial.
They agree with the ERAB’s decision. The applicant contends a
personality conflict existed between him and his rater. He has not
provided any statements from his rating chain nor any official
documentation to prove a personality conflict exist. While
character references were provided on his behalf, those individuals
were not charged with assessing his performance and are somewhat of
a moot point. 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.
A direct correlation between the information provided during
feedback sessions and the assessments on evaluation reports does
not necessarily exist. For example, if after a positive feedback
session, an evaluator discovers serious problems, he or she must
record the problems in the evaluation report even when it may
disagree with the previous feedback provided.
Applicant disagrees with his evaluation report entirely. 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.
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 30 Sep 05 for review and comment within 30 days. 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. The applicant
contends that the ratings on the front of the contested EPR closing
19 Dec 03 did not match the comments on the back and that the EPR
ratings he received were not consistent with the feedbacks he
received. After a thorough review of the evidence provided in
support of the applicant’s appeal, we do not find his assertions,
in and by themselves, sufficiently persuasive to override the
rationale provided by the Air Force. Other than his own
assertions, he did not present any corroborative evidence from his
rating chain or chain of command to support his contention of error
or injustice. Nor did he provide any evidence to show the
contested report is an inaccurate or unfair assessment of his
overall duty performance during the contested rating period or that
the contested report was prepared contrary to the governing
instruction. While character references were provided on his
behalf, these individuals were not charged with assessing his
performance. Therefore, we agree with the opinion and
recommendation of the Air Force office of primary responsibility
and adopt the rationale expressed as the basis for our decision
that the applicant has failed to sustain his burden of having
suffered either an error or injustice. In the absence of
persuasive evidence to the contrary, we find no compelling basis to
recommend granting the relief sought.
___________________________________________________________________
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-2005-02401 in Executive Session on 2 November 2005, under the
provisions of AFI 36-2603:
Mr. John B. Hennessey, Panel Chair
Mr. Joseph D. Yount, Member
Ms. Jean A. Reynolds, 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, HQ AFPC/DPPP, dated 19 Sep 05.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 30 Sep 05.
JOHN B. HENNESSEY
Panel 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 | CY2009 | BC-2009-00541
If there was a personality conflict between the applicant and the rater which was of such magnitude the rater could not be objective, the additional rater, or even the first sergeant and commander would have been aware of the situation and would have made any necessary adjustments to the applicants EPR; or at least supported the applicants appeal request. However, the applicant did not provide any statements from other applicable evaluators. Evaluators must confirm they did not provide...
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 | 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-2005-03819
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 | 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 | CY2009 | BC-2009-00137
When he questioned his supervisor about his performance rating, he was told he would receive a five rating. The complete DPSIDEP 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 6 Mar 09 for review and comment within 30 days. In addition, we note the feedback worksheet provided by the applicant supports the rating he received.
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-00560
In support of his appeal, the applicant provides 9 attachments consisting of a letter to the Board, the contested EPR, LOR, performance feedback worksheet, his previous EPR ratings, character statements, and other documentation. AFPC/DPPP also points out that the ERAB reviewed a memo from the complainant the applicant alleges was forced into writing a false statement. The complete evaluation is at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-00603
The rater of the contested EPR was a colonel assigned to the HQ USAF/SGT as the IHS Program Manager. A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant advises she filed MEO and IG complaints but her complaints were dismissed. MARTHA J. EVANS Panel Chair AFBCMR BC-2005-00603 MEMORANDUM FOR THE CHIEF OF STAFF Having received and considered the recommendation of 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...