RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2005-01497
INDEX CODE: 111.02
MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 9 NOV 06
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
Section III, Number 5, “How Well Does Ratee Supervise/Lead” of the
Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) rendered for the period 24 June 2003
to 23 June 2004 be upgraded from “Highly Effective” to “Exceptionally
Effective Leader.”
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
Section III of the EPR was erroneously marked and should be corrected.
Applicant's complete submission, with attachments, is attached at
Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The applicant is currently serving in the Regular Air Force in the
grade of technical sergeant (TSgt).
On 1 February 2005, the applicant appealed the contested report under
the provisions of AFI 36-2401, Correcting Officer and Enlisted
Evaluations Reports. The Evaluation Reports Appeal Board (ERAB) was
not convinced by the documentation submitted by the applicant and
denied his request on 2 February 2005. The ERAB stated the applicant
did not submit persuasive facts to support upgrading Section III of
the contested EPR.
The applicant’s EPR profile as a TSgt reflects the following:
PERIOD ENDING OVERALL EVALUATION
28 Nov 02 5
23 Jun 03 5
*23 Jun 04 5
* Contested report.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR STAFF EVALUATION:
AFPC/DPPPE states although the applicant provided letters of support
from all the evaluators who endorsed the EPR citing they based their
decision to change the report on “new information provided by the
ratee,” no documentation was provided indicating exactly what the new
information was, nor what role it played in upgrading the report.
They further state performance reports are considered an accurate
assessment when originally rendered unless it is proven otherwise.
Therefore they recommend the applicant’s request be denied.
A complete copy of the evaluation is attached at Exhibit C.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR STAFF EVALUATION:
A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on
30 June 2005, for review and response. 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 an injustice. We took notice of the
applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of the case;
however, we agree with the opinion and the
recommendation 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 an injustice. The applicant has not provided persuasive
evidence to support his request to upgrade the marking in Section III
of the EPR in question. Although letters of support were provided
from the evaluators who endorsed his report, no documentation was
submitted indicating exactly what new information was provided to the
evaluators to persuade them to change the markings. In view of the
foregoing and in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no
compelling basis to recommend granting the relief sought.
_________________________________________________________________
The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket Number BC-
2005-01497 in Executive Session on 4 August 2005, under the provisions
of AFI 36-2603:
Mr. Thomas S. Markiewicz, Chair
Mr. Terry L. Scott, Member
Mr. James W. Russell III, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 1 May 05, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Enlisted Performance Reports.
Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPPP, dated 28 Jun 05.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 30 Jun 05.
THOMAS S. MARKIEWICZ
Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-02202
On 20 July 2005, ARPC/DPBPP, requested the applicant provide a copy of the additional rater’s e-mail, dated 10 July 2003, which the applicant’s cites as an attachment in her Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records application package. We note the comments provided by the Air Force office of primary responsibility that although Air Force policy does require performance feedback for personnel, it does not replace day-to-day feedback; and, failure to conduct a required or requested...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-01693
For airmen who meet eligibility requirements, the immediate supervisor recommends promotion on AF Form 224, Recommendation and Authorization for Promotion of Airman as Reserve of the Air Force. According to the 7 Apr 04 report, MSgt C was the rater and Chief A was the additional rater. A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: He should have received an initial and...
AF | BCMR | CY2008 | BC-2007-03886
At the time of the incident which resulted in his NJP, he was serving in the grade of TSgt with the 78th Security Forces Squadron, Robins AFB, GA. On 12 May 2005, the applicant’s commander offered him NJP under Article 15, UCMJ, for disorderly conduct and assault. We find no evidence of error in this case and after thoroughly reviewing the documentation applicant submitted in support of his appeal, we do not believe he has suffered from an injustice. ...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-01175
On 23 August 2004, she was provided a copy of her 1 July 2004 EPR from the military personnel flight (MPF). 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. We are not convinced by the evidence she provided in support of her appeal, that the contested...
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2006-03011
The rater provides a statement recommending the contested EPR be deleted as it was unjust and did not fit the applicant’s true performance. On 8 Nov 05, the applicant filed a second appeal, requesting the 3 Jun 04 report be deleted because of an unjust rating resulting from a “personnel [sic] conflict with the rater.” The ERAB returned the appeal without action, suggesting the applicant provide a reaccomplished EPR. A complete copy of the HQ AFPC/DPPPWB evaluation is at Exhibit...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-01345
If the AFBCMR voids the contested EPR, the applicant will become a selectee for promotion to TSgt during cycle 02E6, pending a favorable data verification and recommendation of the commander. If supplemental promotion consideration results in the selection for promotion to the higher grade, immediately after such promotion the records shall be corrected to show that he was promoted to the higher grade on the date of rank established by the supplemental promotion and that he is entitled to...
A complete copy of the advisory is attached at Exhibit C. The Chief, Awards and Decorations Section, HQ AFPC/DPPPR, reviewed the application for award of the MSM for the period of 2 Jul 97 – 3 Jul 99. It is the supervisor’s responsibility to recommend or not recommend for a decoration upon Permanent Change of Station (PCS). Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-02670
However, a Letter of Evaluation (LOE) does not contain ratings. Although the applicant worked in different sections, his rater remained TSgt C__ and there was no proof provided to show TSgt C__ was not able to provide a fair assessment on the individual. AFPC/DPPPE’s complete evaluation is at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Applicant reviewed the Air Force evaluation and asks the Board to please accept...
In his submissions to the Evaluation Reports Appeal Board (ERAB), he illustrated his insufficient training, his attempts to get training, and the different conversations he had with the rater concerning his duty performance and accomplished workload tasks. The applicant contends he did not receive the 28 Jun 96 feedback session as indicated on his 16 Nov 96 EPR; however, he did not provide anything from his evaluator to support his allegation. Especially in view of the fact that the report...
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2007-01709
In support of the application, the applicant submits copies of her Application for Correction/Removal of Evaluation Reports (AF Fm 948), the contested EPR, a Memo for Record, a Letter of Reprimand (LOR) and rebuttal, her child's medical records, a List of her Life Skills appointments, a Letter of Evaluation (LOE), and duty status reports. DPPPEP states the Evaluations Reports Appeals Board (ERAB) reviewed and denied the applicant's request on 24 Apr 06. While the applicant provided...