RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2005-03707
INDEX NUMBER: 131.00
COUNSEL: NONE
XXXXXXX HEARING DESIRED: YES
MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 9 JUNE 2007
___________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
All Enlisted Performance Reports (EPRs) dated 19 March 1998 or
later be removed from his records.
___________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
On 19 March 1998, he completed his last action, obtained a GT score
of 114 to enter into the warrant officer ranks while on active
duty.
In support of his application, applicant has provided a copy of DD
Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty, a
personal data statement, a copy of his identification card, DA Form
61, Application for Appointment, DA 160, Application for Active
Duty, Request for Commissioning Physical, Personal Fitness Progress
Chart, Security Clearance Verification, a letter from US Army
Recruiting Command, a letter of appreciation, a letter from
SGF/Diet Therapy, letter of recommendations, military training
records and certifications, latest performance report and a copy of
his appeal package filed under AFI 36-2401.
Applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.
___________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force as an airman basic
on 27 May 1980. Applicant was honorably retired on 31 May 2000 in
the grade of staff sergeant. He served 20 years and 4 days of
total active military.
Applicant’s EPR profile is listed below.
PERIOD ENDING OVERALL EVALUATION
* 15 Dec 98 4
* 15 Dec 99 4
* Contested Reports
___________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
AFPC/DPPP recommends denial and states no errors were found in the
reports. The applicant did not provide any reasons as to why the
reports should be removed from his records. There are no documents of
support showing the reports are inaccurate.
AFPC/DPPP complete evaluation is at Exhibit C.
___________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
The applicant reviewed the Air Force evaluation and stated the request
to remove all airman performance reports (APRs) dated 19 March 1998
or later was due to the fact he retired as a chief warrant officer
from the United States Air Force. All APRs dated 19 March 1998 and
later are incorrect, because the rank is wrong. A lower ranking
individual may not write a performance report on a higher ranking
individual. This is governed by AFI 36-2406, Officer and Enlisted
Evaluation Systems, 1 July 2000.
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 error or injustice. After a thorough review of the
evidence of record and applicant’s submission, we are unpersuaded that
relief should be granted. Applicant’s contention that he was retired
as a chief warrant officer from the Air Force was duly noted; however,
we do not find this assertion, in and by itself, sufficiently
persuasive to override the rationale provided by the office of the Air
Force. In this regard, we note the applicant's records reflect he
retired from the Air Force in the grade of staff sergeant and not a
warrant officer and has failed to sustain his burden that he has
suffered either an error or an injustice. Hence, we find no
compelling basis to recommend granting the relief sought.
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 issue 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 a 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 Docket Number BC-2005-
03707 in Executive Session on 6 April 2006, under the provisions of
AFI 36-2603:
Mr. James W. Russell III, Panel Chair
Ms. Barbara R. Murray, Member
Mr. James L. Sommer, Member
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 26 Nov 05, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPPP, dated 6 Jan 06.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 13 Jan 06.
Exhibit E. Applicant’s Response, undated.
JAMES W. RUSSELL III
Panel Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-02105
In support of his request, the applicant submits a personal statement, copies of the contested EPR, with rebuttal, a letter from the numbered bomb wing commander dismissing the preferred charge and specification, the charge sheet, nomination for award, performance feedback worksheet (PFW) and a copy of his EPR closing 10 August 2003. Applicant's Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) profile follows: Period Ending Evaluation 10 Aug 03 5 – Immediate Promotion *10 Aug 04 2 – Not Recommended This...
The commander coerced her rater and withheld information from the endorser (squadron commander) and rater, creating an inaccurate evaluation of her performance. The AFPC/DPPP evaluation, with attachment, is at Exhibit C. AFPC/DPPPWB states that based on the applicant’s date of rank to staff sergeant, the first time she was considered for promotion to technical sergeant was cycle 02E6. THOMAS S. MARKIEWICZ Vice Chair AFBCMR 02-02518 MEMORANDUM FOR THE CHIEF OF STAFF Having received and...
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...
In support of his appeal, applicant provided copies of the contested report, a performance feedback worksheet received during the contested rating period, two prior evaluations and a subsequent evaluation, and a supporting statement from the rater on the contested report. DPPP stated that even though the EPR was written some 11 months after the closeout of the report, nothing is provided by the applicant or the evaluators to demonstrate that the comments contained in the EPR are inaccurate....
However, based on the supporting statement from the former MPF chief and the superior ratings the applicant has received before and since, the majority of the Board believes the possibility exists that the contested EPR may be flawed. Therefore, in order to offset the possibility of an injustice, the Board majority concludes that any doubt should be resolved in this applicant’s favor by voiding the 31 Jul 99 EPR from his records and granting him supplemental promotion consideration. ...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-02368
DPPP states the applicant did not file an appeal under the provisions of AFI 36-2401, Correcting Officer and Enlisted Evaluation Reports. 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...
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...
DPPP stated that the letter from the rater supports removal of the contested OPR - it does not support replacing the report with a reaccomplished version. The rater's letter does not substantiate the report, as written, is invalid. After reviewing the evidence presented, we are persuaded that the applicant may not have been fairly evaluated by the additional rater/reviewer at the time the report was rendered.
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-01862
_________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: His rater did not provide mid-term performance feedback on 1 March 2006 as indicated on the report, nor was verbal feedback provided from the endorsers. We note the applicant’s assertion that his chain of command did not provide written or verbal performance feedback; however, we also note the comments provided by the Air Force office of primary responsibility that although Air Force policy does...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-01816
By letter, dated 29 Nov 05, the applicant requested that his “Do Not Promote” PRFs also be removed from his records, and that he be provided SSB consideration based on the new information obtained from a CDI, which is attached at Exhibit E. By electronic mail (e-mail), dated 5 Dec 05, the applicant provided additional documentary evidence for the Board’s consideration, which is attached Exhibit F. _________________________________________________________________ ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE...