RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2006-00587
INDEX CODE: 111.02
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 29 August 2007
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) rendered for the period 24 August
2004 through 1 July 2005 be expunged from his records.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
On the EPR in question, the last line in the Rater’s comments and
Additional Rater’s comments are negative statements making this a referral
EPR. He should have had an opportunity to respond to these comments;
however, the opportunity was never made to him.
In support of his request, the applicant submits a copy of the EPR in
question. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachment, is at
Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The applicant is currently serving on active duty in the grade of technical
sergeant. He is serving as a Dining Facility Training Manager.
The following is a resume of the applicant’s EPR profile:
PERIOD ENDING PROMOTION RECOMMENDATION
14 Mar 95 5
14 Mar 96 5
14 Mar 97 5
14 Mar 98 5
14 Mar 99 5
14 Mar 00 5
14 Mar 01 5
12 Nov 02 5
12 Nov 03 5
23 Aug 04 5
01 Jul 05* 3
* Contested report
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
AFPC/DPPPEP recommends the applicant’s EPR closing on 1 July 2005 be
corrected administratively instead of being voided based on support from
the rater. DPPPEP determined the comment in Section VI, line 6 is not a
referral comment. The comment “Very capable NCO; however, must continue to
improve fitness level to ensure compliance with AF standards,” simply
states the applicant should improve on his fitness standards. There is no
mention as to the applicant not meeting standards. However, the comment in
Section V, line 13 has been determined to be a referral comment based on
the statement “continues to perform below minimum standards.” This
statement gives the impression the member cannot maintain the minimum
standards and should have been referred to the applicant.
DPPPEP contacted the rater to determine if it was his intention to make the
report a referral. The rater replied it was not their intention to make
the report a referral and provided DPPPEP with new comments of “Member has
exhibited some improvement on Annual fitness Test…continue to challenge him
to maintain standards, for Section V, line 13, to replace the referral
comment.
The AFPC/DPPPEP evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit D.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 14
April 2006 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. Sufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the
existence of an injustice. After a thorough review of the evidence of
record, we are sufficiently persuaded that some relief is warranted in this
case. In this respect, we note the rater’s and additional rater’s comments
that they did not intend for the contested report to be a referral and take
note of their suggested changes. In view of the foregoing, we concur with
the Air Force advisory opinion and believe the best remedy would be to
adopt the suggested changes versus voiding the EPR. Therefore, in an
effort to offset any possibility of an injustice to the applicant, we
recommend the records be corrected to the extent indicated below.
_________________________________________________________________
THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:
The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating
to APPLICANT be corrected to show that the Enlisted Performance Report (AB
thru TSGT), AF IMT 910, rendered for the period 24 August 2004 through 1
July 2005, be amended to change Section V, Line 13 to reflect “Member has
exhibited some improvement on Annual Fit test…continue to challenge to
maintain standards,” rather than “Member has exhibited some improvement on
Annual Fit Test…continues to perform below minimum standards.”
_________________________________________________________________
The following members of the Board considered this application in Executive
Session on 8 June 2006, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:
Mr. Wayne R. Gracie, Panel Chair
Mr. John B. Hennessey, Member
Mr. Todd L. Schafer, Member
All members voted to correct the records, as recommended. The following
documentary evidence for AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2006-00587 was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 22 Feb 06, w/atch.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/ DPPPEP, dated 29 Mar 06, w/atchs.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 14 Apr 06.
WAYNE R. GRACIE
Panel Chair
AFBCMR BC-2006-00587
MEMORANDUM FOR THE CHIEF OF STAFF
Having received and considered the recommendation of the Air Force
Board for Correction of Military Records and under the authority of Section
1552, Title 10, United States Code (70A Stat 116), it is directed that:
The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force
relating XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX, be corrected to show that the Enlisted
Performance Report (AB thru TSGT), AF IMT 910, rendered for the period 24
August 2004 through 1 July 2005 be, and hereby is, declared void and
removed from his records.
JOE G. LINEBERGER
Director
Air Force Review Boards Agency
MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, AIR FORCE BOARD
FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS (AFBCMR)
FROM: SAF/MRB
SUBJECT: AFBCMR Case on XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX, AFBCMR: BC-2006-00587
I have carefully considered all aspects of this case and agree with
the AFBCMR panel that relief is warranted in respect to the applicant’s
Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) closing 1 July 2005. While the Board
voted to edit the verbiage of the EPR to prevent it from being a referral
report, I feel that further relief is warranted. Because of the reasons
set forth hereinafter, I believe his EPR should be voided and removed from
the applicant’s records.
The Air Force Office of Primary Responsibility (OPR) confirmed the
contested EPR, as written, contained verbiage that made the report
referral; however, the report was never referred to the applicant for
comment. After being contacted by the Air Force OPR, the applicant’s rater
and additional rater submitted statements confirming they did not intend
for the contested report to be referral and included suggested changes
which the panel recommends approval. However, since the Air Force violated
its own Air Force Instruction (AFI) by failing to timely refer the
contested report to the applicant, equity and justice dictates that it
should be voided in its entirety.
In arriving at my decision, I am keenly aware the Board cannot make a
correction that is detrimental to the applicant. Since the correction to
the EPR permits the Air Force to overcome a fatal flaw and retain a
mediocre report in his file, it should not stand.
JOE
G. LINEBERGER
Director
Air
Force Review Boards Agency
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-01996
She further indicates if her rating was based on counselings she received then her rating should be changed. _________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: On 30 June 1999, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force. The applicant has failed to provide any information/support from the rating chain on the contested EPR.
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-01081
DPPPEP states the applicant filed two appeals under the provisions of AFI 36-2401, Correcting Officer and Enlisted Reports. Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 6 May 05. CHRISTOPHER D. CAREY Panel Chair AFBCMR BC-2005-01081 MEMORANDUM FOR THE CHIEF OF STAFF Having received and considered the recommendation of the Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records and under the authority of Section 1552, Title 10, United States Code (70A Stat 116), it is directed that: The pertinent military...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-01716
In support of her request, the applicant provided a personal statement, copy of statement Reason for Appeal of Referral EPR, AF IMT Form 910 Enlisted Performance Report, a Rebuttal to Referral Report Memorandum, a Letter of Appreciation, AF Form IMT 931, Performance Feedback Worksheet, five Letters of Recommendation and excerpts from her military personnel records. On 3 October 2005, an unsigned copy of the referral EPR dated 30 September 2005 was presented to her. After reviewing the...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-00448
While current Air Force policy requires performance feedback for personnel, a direct correlation between information provided during feedback sessions and the assessments on evaluation reports does not necessarily exist. Evaluators must confirm they did not provide counseling or feedback, and that this directly resulted in an unfair evaluation. AFPC/DPPPEP's complete evaluation is at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR...
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 02-01667 INDEX CODE: 111.02 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His Enlisted Performance Report (EPR), rendered for the period 2 Feb 97 through 1 Feb 98, be replaced with the reaccomplished EPR provided; and, that he be provided supplemental promotion consideration to the grade of senior master...
Except for the contested report and a 2 Dec 91 EPR having an overall rating of “4,” all of the applicant’s performance reports since Dec 90 have had overall ratings of “5.” Since the Article 15’s suspended reduction expired on 12 Aug 96, prior to the 31 Dec 96 Promotion Eligibility Cutoff Date (PECD) for promotion cycle 97E6, the Article 15 did not affect the applicant’s eligibility for promotion consideration to technical sergeant for that cycle. ...
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2007-00685
_________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPPPEP recommends denial of the applicant’s request to correct the period of report on the 28 Feb 06 EPR. As stated in AFI 36-2401, A1.5.17, “The Air Force does not require the designated rater to be your immediate supervisor. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Applicant submitted a statement from his rater during the period...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-01995
Instead, para 4.7.5.2 is the appropriate reference that applies to the applicant and it states, “…the LOE becomes a referral document attached to the report.” After reviewing the referral EPR, the rater did not attach the LOE to the applicant’s referral EPR, therefore, as an administrative correction, DPPPEP recommends the LOE be attached to the referral EPR with corrections made to the “From and Thru” dates. DPPPWB states the first time the contested report would normally have...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-02414
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2006-02414 INDEX CODE: 111.02 XXXXXXX COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 15 FEB 2008 ___________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His enlisted performance report closing 13 Sep 05 be voided. ___________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: HQ AFPC/DPPPEP reviewed...
If the referral EPR closing 11 Dec 96 is removed as requested, the applicant would normally be entitled to supplemental promotion consideration to technical sergeant beginning with the 97E6 cycle provided she is recommended by her commander and is otherwise qualified. However, as a result of her circumstances, the applicant has not received an EPR subsequent to the referral EPR (reason for ineligibility), has not taken the required promotion tests, and has not been considered or recommended...