RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2005-01236
INDEX CODE: 111.05
XXXXXXXXXXXXX COUNSEL: NONE
XXXXXXXXXXXXXX HEARING DESIRED: NO
MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 15 OCT 2006
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
The Enlisted Performance Reports (EPRs) closing out on 8 July 1980 and 22
May 1987, be declared void and he be considered for supplemental promotion
consideration to the grade of technical sergeant for the 86A6 cycle and
promotion consideration to the grade of master sergeant for cycle FY89A7
through cycles FY92A7.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
In 1980 he was rated by a noncommissioned officer (NCO) with the same rank
and time in service (TIS). His rater stated he would not allow him to be
promoted ahead of him. The applicant also contends the 1987 EPR was
written by a captain who was pending discharge for substandard performance
and should not have rated him. Both reports precluded him from being
promoted.
In support of his request, the applicant provided a copy of his DD Form 214
Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty and excerpts from his
personnel records.
Applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force in the grade of airman
basic for a term of 4 years. He was progressively promoted to the grade of
technical sergeant and retired in that grade on 30 November 1991. He
served a total of 20 years and 16 days total active duty service.
The applicant’s EPR profile since 1980 reflects the following:
PERIOD ENDING EVALUATION OF POTENTIAL
* 8 Jul 80 8
8 Jul 81 9
24 Nov 81 9
16 Jul 82 9
4 Apr 83 9
4 Apr 84 9
23 Oct 84 9
31 May 85 9
17 Mar 86 9
15 Sep 86 9
* 22 May 87 8
22 May 88 9
13 May 89 9
10 Mar 90 5
10 Mar 91 4
* Contested reports
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
AFPC/DPPP recommends denial. They indicated the application was not
submitted in a timely manner nor did the applicant file an appeal under the
provisions of AFI 36-2401, Correcting Officer and Enlisted Evaluation
Reports, 20 February 2004.
According to DPPP the applicant states the 8 July 1980 EPR was written by a
rater with the same TIS and TIG. He also stated the rater made a comment
that he would not allow the applicant to be promoted ahead of him.
Unfortunately, the applicant did not provide any support that the statement
was made or that the report was written unfairly. AFR 39-62, Enlisted
Performance Reports, 1 March 1980, defines a rater as “the person
designated on an AF Form 2095. Designation can be by organizational
structure, be set up at each level of command, or when commander’s deem it
justifiable for the organization structure for rating purposes. A rater
may be an officer or NCO of a US or foreign military service, a senior
airman or a civilian. Airman first class or below do not qualify as
raters.” The applicant’s rater was assigned appropriately according to
regulations.
DPPP states in regard to the applicant’s claim that the 22 May 1987 EPR
should not have been written by a captain with substandard performance, AFR
39-62, Noncommissioned Officer and Airman Performance Reports 28 October
1983, defines rater as “the person designated on an AF Form 2095. The
rater is usually the ratee’s immediate supervisor. The rater must be
serving in a grade equal to or higher than the ratee. A rater may be an
officer or NCO of a US or foreign military service, a senior airman or a
civilian.” The rater for this reporting period met all requirements
according to this regulation. Also, the rater was not “relieved from duty”
as an evaluator due to substandard performance. The applicant did not
provide any supporting evidence that the rater’s performance prevented him
from providing a fair assessment. The rater was assigned appropriately
according to regulations.
DPPP states a review of the applicant’s record reveals he was considered
and nonselected for promotion to technical sergeant five times (cycles 82A6-
86A6) with the first contested report (8 July 1980) used in the promotion
process. He was then considered and nonselected for promotion to master
sergeant three times (cycles 90A7 through 92A7) with the second contested
report (22 May 1987) used in the promotion process before retiring in the
grade of technical sergeant on 30 November 1991.
The complete DPPP evaluation is at Exhibit C.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
The applicant states he agrees that if the 1980 report was removed, he
would have been promoted in 1985, not 1986. In 1988 he was recommended for
a STEP promotion to master sergeant, but was told that the 1987 report
stopped the wing commander from considering him for the stripe.
He believes that having raters of the same rank, time in service and time
in grade is grossly unfair. The captain that wrote the report in 1987 was
honorably discharged, because he was not promoted to major in an
appropriate amount of time for his rank.
The applicant’s complete response is at Exhibit E.
_________________________________________________________________
THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:
1. The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by existing law or
regulations.
2. The application was not timely filed; however, it is in the interest
of justice to excuse the failure to timely file.
3. Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the
existence of an error or an injustice. The applicant contends the
contested EPR is unjust and prevented promotion opportunities during his
career. However, after thoroughly reviewing the evidence of record we are
not persuaded that the contested reports should be declared void and
removed from his records or that he should be provided supplemental
promotion consideration. We note the applicant has not submitted any
supporting documentation from the rating chain of the contested reports and
has failed to provide evidence showing the reports were not an accurate
assessment as rendered. Therefore, we agree with the opinions and
recommendations of the Air Force 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 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 an 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-
01236 in Executive Session on 8 March 2006 under the provisions of AFI 36-
2603:
Ms. Kathy L. Boockholdt, Panel Chair
Ms. Cheryl V. Jacobson, Member
Mr. August Doddato, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 1 Apr 05, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPPP, dated 16 Nov 05.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 23 Dec 05.
Exhibit E. Letter, Applicant, dated 27 Dec 05.
KATHY L. BOOCKHOLDT
Panel Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-03042
The applicant has failed to provide any information/support from the rating chain on the contested EPR. DPPP states a review of the applicant’s record reveals the first time the contested report would have normally been considered in the promotion process was cycle 03E6. The complete 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...
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...
_________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Chief, Inquiries/AFBCMR Section, Enlisted Promotions & Military Testing Branch, AFPC/DPPPWB, reviewed this application and stated the first time the contested report was considered in the promotion process was cycle 99E6 to Technical Sergeant. A complete copy of the evaluation is attached at Exhibit C. The Chief, Performance Evaluation Section, Directorate of Personnel Program Management,...
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...
On 14 Apr 00, the investigating officer documented his findings during the report of survey identifying the applicant as being grossly negligent in his actions. The additional rater stated that the applicant did receive a copy of the EPR and referral memorandum. Therefore, in the absence of evidence that the contested report was an inaccurate depiction of the applicant’s performance at the time it was rendered, we adopt AFPC/DPPPE’s rationale and conclude that no basis exists to...
___________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS: The Inquiries/AFBCMR Section, AFPC/DPPPWB, evaluated this application and provided the following information regarding the impact of the two EPRs on the applicant’s promotion consideration: The first time the two EPRs impacted the applicant’s promotion consideration was cycle 94A6 to TSgt (promotions effective Aug 93–Jul 94). We therefore recommend that the contested reports be corrected as indicated...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2004-03682
As such, DPPP is not convinced the contested report is not accurate as written and they do not support the request for removal and replacement DPPP further states the applicant agrees with the decision that the time to dispute an EPR is before it became a matter of record. A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant disagrees with the DPPP and ERAB assessments...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-02258
A similar appeal was considered and denied by the Board on 15 January 1998. They also note the applicant did not submit any new evidence or identify any errors or injustices that occurred in the discharge processing. DPPRS’s evaluation is at Exhibit D. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant for review and comment on 14 October 2005.
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-00334
_________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: He should have had an EPR prepared on him for the period 4 Oct 02 through 6 Mar 03, but did not because an erroneous change of reporting official was processed in the personnel system and precluded his reporting official from writing the report. In support of his appeal, applicant provides a letter from his rater during the contested period, a letter from his current section commander, and the EPR he...
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...