RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2005-03819
INDEX CODE: 111.02, 111.05
XXXXXXX COUNSEL: None
XXXXXXX HEARING DESIRED: No
MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 17 Jun 07
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
The Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) for the period 6 Aug 01 through
31 Mar 02 be declared void and removed from her records.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
The last report she received while assigned to Ft. Meade, MD, was
based on a personality conflict rather than her duty performance. She
was not counseled and all of her feedback was positive. She was not
aware of the AFBCMR process until a few months ago.
The applicant provides supporting statements, none of which are from
the contested EPR’s rating chain members. The former superintendent
of the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB), indicates the
applicant told him she felt the contested report was the result of a
personality conflict with her former supervisor. He concludes the
report must be in error based on the quality of her performance he
observed. The rater and additional rater of the applicant’s EPRs
closing 31 Mar 03, 31 Mar 04, and 31 Mar 05, also provide statements.
The rater asserts the applicant is better than indicated in the
contested report and notes the supervisory chain not only downgraded
her but also failed to recommend her for a decoration. 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. A former Ft. Meade coworker indicates the
rater of the contested report “seemed to have some type of problem”
with the applicant and others.
The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit
A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 5 Mar 97 and is
currently serving in the grade of SSgt with a date of rank (DOR) of
1 Mar 02.
According to the Military Personnel Data System (MilPDS) and her EPRs,
the applicant was assigned to the 649th Support Squadron at Ft. Meade,
MD, on 29 May 97. From 1 Nov 99 through 5 Aug 01, she served as the
Military Personnel Flight (MPF) Information Manager. The contested
EPR reflects she was the Noncommissioned Officer in Charge (NCOIC),
Information Manager, Commander Support Staff, from 6 Aug 01 through
31 Mar 02.
On 30 Apr 02, the applicant was assigned to the AFDRB as the NCOIC.
The contested EPR was first considered in the promotion process for
technical sergeant (TSgt) in cycle 04E6. The applicant’s total score
was 279.54; the score required for selection in her Air Force
Specialty Code (AFSC) was 299.11. The selections for this cycle were
made on 17 Jul 04.
The report was also considered during cycle 05E6, but the applicant
was not selected. Her total score was 293.60; the score required for
selection in her AFSC was 294.20. The selections for this cycle were
made on 6 Jun 05.
The applicant filed her AFBCMR appeal on 13 Dec 05.
If the contested EPR is removed, the applicant would remain a
nonselectee for cycle 04E6, but she would become a selectee for cycle
05E6.
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 (AFDRB)
31 Mar 05 5 (AFDRB)
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
HQ AFPC/DPPP recommends denial, contending the applicant has not
provided specific instances which substantiate the relationship
between herself and the rater was strained to the point an objective
evaluation was impossible. The letters of support are not relevant to
the report in question. Three supporting statements are from sources
outside the reporting period. If there was a personality conflict
between the applicant and the rater which was of such magnitude the
rater could not be objective, the author believes the additional rater
would have known about it, since the EPR indicates the rater and
additional rater were assigned to the same location, and would have
adjusted the EPR accordingly. There is no information provided from
the evaluators or official substantiation of error or injustice from
the Inspector General (IG) or Military Equal Opportunity (MEO). It is
important to note the applicant made no attempt to correct her record
until she found she had missed selection for promotion to TSgt by less
than one point, and she now contends she was unaware of the BCMR
process until a few months ago.
A complete copy of the 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 3 Feb 06 for review and comment within 30 days. As of
this date, this office has received no response.
_________________________________________________________________
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. After a thorough review of the
evidence of record and the applicant’s submission, we are not
persuaded the 31 Mar 02 EPR should be removed from her records. The
applicant claims the contested report was the result of a personality
conflict with the rater. However, the supporting statements provided
are from individuals who were outside the rating chain and reporting
period of the 31 Mar 02 EPR. The individual who was a coworker during
the rating period in question provides no substantive evidence other
than indicating the rater “seemed to have some type of problem” with
the applicant and that there was a “lot of office talks and
complaints” about the rater’s management style. Neither the submitted
statements nor the applicant have demonstrated to our satisfaction
that the alleged personality conflict was so severe it adversely
affected the objectivity of both the rater and additional rater. We
therefore agree with the recommendations of the Air Force and adopt
the rationale expressed as the basis for our decision that the
applicant has not sustained her burden of
having suffered either an error or an injustice. In view of the above
and absent 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 this application in
Executive Session on 25 April 2006, under the provisions of AFI 36-
2603:
Mr. Michael K. Gallogly, Panel Chair
Ms. Mary C. Puckett, Member
Mr. Grover L. Dunn, Member
The following documentary evidence relating to AFBCMR Docket Number BC-
2005-03819 was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 13 Dec 05, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPP, dated 23 Jan 06.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 6 Feb 06.
MICHAEL K. GALLOGLY
Panel Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-03247
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBERS: BC-2003-03247 INDEX CODE 111.02 111.05 COUNSEL: None HEARING DESIRED: No _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) for the period 28 Apr 01 through 25 Mar 02 be declared void and removed from his records [administratively accomplished]; his duty title be corrected to reflect “NCOIC, Evaluation...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-02283
AFPC/DPPAOR indicated the applicant was given credit for all of her active duty time and that her TAFMSD was correct (Exhibit D). EPRs are a record of performance while serving in the military, whether on active duty or in the Air Force Reserve. _________________________________________________________________ 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...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2004-03357
CLOSING DATE OVERALL EVALUATION 31 Dec 03 5 31 Dec 02 5 31 Dec 01 4 (Contested) 15 Nov 00 5 31 Dec 99 5 1 May 99 5 1 May 98 5 1 May 97 5 1 May 96 5 1 May 95 5 The applicant filed a similar appeal under the provisions of AFI 36- 2401. He further contended he had only 48 days of supervision with the rater of the 31 Dec 01 EPR, and that the closeout date was changed from 15 Nov 01 to 31 Dec 01. If the applicant received a new rater in Jul 01 as the Air Force asserts, then the EPR’s reporting...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-00368
The applicant’s total weighted promotion score for the cycle 05E6 was 300.98 and the score required for selection in her Air Force Specialty Code (AFSC) was 302.09. We note that, in order for a decoration to be credited for a specific promotion cycle, the closeout date of the decoration must be on or before the PECD, and the date of the DECOR-6 must be before the date of selections for a particular cycle. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-00313
The second was a report closing 30 September 2004, in which the Promotion Recommendation was “5” and the evaluations of his performance were all “firewall” ratings. DPPP states the applicant filed an appeal under the provisions of AFI 36-2401, Correcting Officer and Enlisted Reports. We believe any doubt in this matter should be resolved in favor of the applicant and conclude that the contested report should be removed from his records, and he should be given supplemental promotion...
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...
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...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2004-02718
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2004-02718 INDEX CODES: 100.05, 111.02 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 4 Mar 06 _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: By amendment, his promotion eligibility be reinstated so his test scores for the 03E6 cycle can be graded; he receive promotion consideration for cycle 04E6; his training status code...
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-2005-00334
_________________________________________________________________ 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...