RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2005-02368
INDEX CODE: 111.00
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
MANDATORY COMPLETION DATE: 31 NOVEMBER 2006
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His Enlisted Performance Report (EPR)for the period of 17 April 2003 to 16
April 2004 be reviewed/reconsidered for Senior Rater Endorsement.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
He far exceeded the requirements for a Senior Rater Endorsement on his EPR.
The merits listed on the EPR alone warrant a Senior Rater Endorsement. He
has his CCAF degree, finished his Course 5 before pinning on MSgt, excelled
in all aspects of his daily duties, and was very active within the base
(assuming key leadership positions). He received a Meritorious Service
Medal (MSM) upon completing his two-year commitment, which by Air Force
Instructions is an award given only to those members who far exceed normal
AF standards.
In support of the application, the applicant submits his personal
statement, a copy of his IG complaint, and a copy of his MSM citation.
The applicant's complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The Military Personnel Database (MilPDS) indicates the applicant has a
Total Active Federal Military Service Date of 14 April 1988. He has
continually served on active duty and has been progressively promoted to
the grade of master sergeant (E-7), with a date of rank of 1 July 2002.
The following is a resume of the applicant’s last ten (10) EPR’s commencing
with the report ending 12 May 1995:
PERIOD ENDING PROMOTION RECOMMENDATION
12 May 1995 5
12 May 1996 5
12 May 1997 5
12 May 1998 5
1 Feb 1999 5
3 Feb 2000 5
3 Feb 2001 5
16 Apr 2002 5
16 Apr 2003 5
*16 Apr 2004 5
*Contested Report
The applicant submitted an Inspector General Personal and Fraud, Waste &
Abuse Complaint Registration form. HQ USAFE/IGQ states there was no formal
Report of Investigation done and their analysis resulted in a dismissal of
the applicant’s complaint (Exhibit B).
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
HQ AFPC/DPPP recommends denial. DPPP states the applicant did not file an
appeal under the provisions of AFI 36-2401, Correcting Officer and Enlisted
Evaluation Reports. The applicant submitted an IG complaint but failed to
provide the findings to the investigation.
DPPP states the senior rater’s signature is optional. An EPR is only
required to have a minimum signature of a major or GS-12 equivalent. DPPP
concludes the applicant did not provide any documentation to support his
case. DPPP’s evaluation is at Exhibit C.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
In his response dated 1 November 2005, the applicant provided his detailed
refutations regarding the recommendations of the Air Force office of
responsibility (Exhibit E).
_________________________________________________________________
THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:
1. The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by existing law or
regulations.
2. The application was time filed.
3. Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the
existence of probable error or injustice. We carefully considered the
applicant’s complete submission in judging the merits of the case; however
we are not persuaded that the contested report should receive Senior Rater
endorsement. The applicant has failed to provide the evidence necessary to
substantiate the value of a senior rater endorsement. Additionally, we
note the analysis of the IG complaint revealed no wrongdoing, violation of
regulation, or violation of law. 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 an injustice. In conclusion, we find no
basis to recommend granting the relief sought in this case.
_________________________________________________________________
THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:
The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not demonstrate
the existence of probable 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 BC-2005-02368 in
Executive Session on 9 March 2006, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:
Ms. Charlene M. Bradley, Panel Chair
Ms. Josephine L. Davis, Panel Member
Mr. James A. Wolffe, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 20 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 7 Oct 05.
Exhibit E. Applicant’s Rebuttal, dated 1 Nov 05, w/atch.
CHARLENE M. BRADLEY
Panel Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2008 | BC-2005-02368-2
On 9 Mar 06, the Board considered and denied his request after finding that he had not provided the evidence necessary to substantiate the value of a senior rater endorsement (Exhibit F). However, his statement appears to be based primarily on his personal opinion that the applicant should have received a senior rater endorsement. ________________________________________________________________ The following members of the Board considered this application in Executive Session on 10 July...
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...
_________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Chief, Evaluation Programs Branch, AFPC/DPPPE, reviewed this application and indicated that applicant has no support from the wing commander (and additional rater on the OPR) or either of the senior raters that prepared the contested PRFs (Note: The senior rater that prepared the CY96B PRF was also the reviewer of the contested OPR). A complete copy of their evaluation, with attachments, is...
Her request for senior rater endorsement on the EPR should not be granted at this time. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant reviewed the Air Force evaluations and provides the wing commander’s concurrence of her request for senior rater indorsement. Sufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of probable error or injustice to warrant amending the MSM citation to include...
AF | BCMR | CY2009 | BC-2009-01997
On 20 Jan 04, the applicant initiated an AF Form 102, Inspector General Personal and Fraud, Waste and Abuse Complaint Registration , alleging reprisal and abuse of authority by his chain of command relative to his EPR and his request for extension of his (DEROS). On 20 Dec 05, the applicant was notified by Headquarters, Air Mobility Command Office of the Inspector General (HQ AMC/IG) of its findings regarding his allegations. SAF/IG reviewed the HQ AMC/IG report of investigation and...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-03338
He states his commander also recommended he be removed from the Air Force Central Command CMSgt Candidate listing. DPE notes that based on the actions that led to the applicant receiving a letter of reprimand on 13 Sep 04, the wing commander recommended removal of the applicant’s name from the list, which was subsequent approved by the PACAF commander. In regards to the curtailment of his overseas assignment, the applicant states that the reasons for his curtailment were not elaborated on...
On 9 September 1997, the applicant wrote to the 39th Wing IG alleging he had experienced reprisal by his squadron commander for giving a protected statement to an IG investigator during a separate IG investigation on 15 and 19 July 1997. The applicant alleged the squadron commander withheld a senior rater endorsement to [the EPR in question]. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Chief, Inquiries/AFBCMR Section, HQ AFPC/DPPPWB, reviewed...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2012 05342
The Evaluation Report Appeals Board (ERAB) directed that his EPR closing 29 Jun 06 be replaced; however, he should have been provided supplemental promotion consideration for promotion cycles 07E8 and 08E8. Regarding the applicants contention his EPR covering the period 1 Apr 05 through 30 Sep 06, which is only a matter of record because he requested that it replace another report, was in error because it was not signed by his additional rater at the time in violation of AFI 36-2406, the...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-02826
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2005-02826 INDEX CODE: 111.05 XXXXXXX COUNSEL: NONE XXXXXXX HEARING DESIRED: YES MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 17 APR 2007 _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: The Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) closing out on 1 September 2002 be declared void and removed from her records. The complete evaluation is at Exhibit...
The EPR was designed to provide a rating for a specific period of time based on the performance noted during that period, not based on previous performance. One could also conclude, the “4” he received on the contested EPR may have motivated him to improve his duty performance for the subsequent reporting period. While it is true that EPRs are an important factor used in determining promotion potential under the Weighted Airmen’s Promotion System (WAPS), the contested report is not unjust,...