RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2006-01446
INDEX CODE: 111.02
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 13 NOVEMBER 2007
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) rendered for the period ending 1
September 2004 be removed from his records.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
He suffered reprisal because he exercised his right by filing an IG
complaint against a senior leader within his unit.
In support of his request, applicant provides copies of his last five EPRs,
letters of support, a copy of the IG complaint request and associated
correspondence and a copy of his application to the Evaluation Reports
Appeal Board (ERAB).
The applicant's complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The Military Personnel Database (MilPDS) indicates the applicant is
currently serving on active duty and has been progressively promoted to the
grade of senior master sergeant (E-8), effective and with a date of rank 1
June 2005.
On 20 February 2004, a similar appeal by the applicant was considered and
denied by the ERAB. However, the ERAB changed the performance feedback
section to read "performance feedback was not accomplished during the
rating period only verbal feedback throughout the rating period."
The following is a resume of his EPR profile:
PERIOD ENDING PROMOTION RECOMMENDATION
07 Mar 02 5
07 Mar 03 5
07 Mar 04 5
01 Sep 04 5(Contested Report)
01 Sep 05 5
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
AFPC/DPPP recommends denial. DPPP states the applicant did not provide any
evidence to substantiate reprisal. The applicant has not substantiated the
contested report was not rendered in good faith by all evaluators based on
knowledge available at that time. DPPP advises that it appears the report
was accomplished in direct accordance with applicable regulations. The
AFPC/DPPP complete evaluation is at Exhibit C.
AFPC/JA recommends denial. JA advises that in order to establish a prima
facie whistleblower case, there must be more than the mere existence of a
"retaliatory personnel action" and a "protected communication." There must
actually be a "protected communication" predating and which potentially
could cause a "retaliatory" personnel action. While the applicant's IG
compliant is certainly among the types of communication meriting protection
under the Military Whistleblowers Protection Act, JA states they were
unable to locate evidence in his records that the applicant suffered any
form of retaliation as a consequence of filing an IG complaint. JA states
that AFPC/DPP previously requested the applicant forward the IG's report of
investigation; however, has failed to respond with the IG findings. The
AFPC/JA complete evaluation is at Exhibit D.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
A copy of the Air Force evaluation was sent to the applicant on 18 August
2006 for review and comment. 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. We have noted the documents provided with
the applicant’s submission. However, they do not, in our opinion, support
a finding that the evaluators were unable to render unbiased evaluations of
the applicant’s performance or that the ratings on the contested report
were based on factors other than applicant’s duty performance during the
contested rating period. The applicant asserts he suffered reprisal
because he exercised his right by filing an Inspector General complaint;
however, no supporting documentation has been submitted. In view of the
foregoing, and in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no basis
upon which to recommend granting the relief sought in this application.
_________________________________________________________________
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 this application in Executive
Session on 3 October 2006 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:
Mr. Thomas S. Markiewicz, Chair
Mr. Elwood C. Lewis, Member
Mr. Todd L. Schafer, Member
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 5 May 06, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPPP, dated 7 Aug 06.
Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/JA, dated 11 Aug 06
Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 18 Aug 06.
THOMAS S. MARKIEWICZ
Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-02811
His performance to date did not warrant he be selected for reenlistment. On 7 Jan 05, the applicant’s commander concurred with the supervisor’s recommendation and nonselected him for reenlistment. At the end of the deferral period, the applicant received a letter stating his promotion had been placed in a withhold status because of his nonselection for reenlistment.
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-03142
However, on 27 Aug 01, the squadron commander reported to the Wing IG he was considering removing the applicant as NCOIC of the Hydraulics shop because he was inciting his personnel over the manning issue and continuing to complain about it outside the rating chain. The complete evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit D. AFPC/JA recommends the LOR administered to the applicant on 25 Mar 02, the EPR rendered on him closing 19 Jul 02, and the AF Form 418 be voided and removed from his...
AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-01393
The applicant’s complete response w/attachments, is at Exhibit F. ________________________________________________________________ disagrees with 5 of the Air Force offices of THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT: 1. The applicant’s contentions that her contested EPR does not accurately reflect a true account of her performance and enforcement of standards, that her rater gave her deceptive feedback, and that a rating markdown in Section III, block 2, of the EPR was in reprisal for her involvement in...
A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit K. The Chief, Evaluation Programs Branch, AFPC/DPPPE, reviewed this application and states that although the applicant has provided support from the senior rater, she provide no support from the MLR president to warrant upgrading the PRF. After reviewing the evidence of record and noting the applicant’s contentions, the majority of the Board is not persuaded that the applicant’s records are either in error or unjust. The...
AF | BCMR | CY2009 | BC-2007-02503
________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: ARPC/JA recommends relief, and states, in part; the applicant suffered a downgraded EPR due to lack of training and lack of response from her supervisors or chain of command. The evidence of record clearly establishes that she was not being properly trained and that her chain-of-command was derelict in training her. At the request of the applicant’s counsel, the DoD/IG reexamined the documentation...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-02499
The IG dismissed the complaint because documented evidence against the complainant supported the 2 EPR rating. After a thorough review of the evidence of record and applicant’s submission, we are unpersuaded that the contested EPR should be removed from her record. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of material error or injustice; that...
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 | CY2011 | BC-2011-00720
In support of his request, the applicant provides a personal statement, excerpts from his medical records, letters of support, and other documentation associated with his request. The following is a resume of his EPR ratings, commencing with the report closing 26 Oct 07: RATING PERIOD PROMOTION RECOMMENDATION 26 Oct 07 5 20 Dec 06 5 20 Jun 06 4 * 13 Oct 05 2 13 Oct 04 5 * Contested Report Under separate cover, the applicant requested assistance from Senator Murray on 19 Jan 11 in support of...
DPPPA indicated that the second DoD/IG complaint in May 97, contending further reprisal alleging that his command denied him an MSM, downgraded his 14 Jun 97 EPR, and assigned him to an inappropriate position, for the protected communication to the IG and wing safety officials, did not substantiate the applicant was the victim of continued reprisal. With regard to applicant’s request for promotion, JA agrees with HQ AFPC/DPPPWB’s assessments that should the Board void or modify either of...
AF | BCMR | CY1999 | BC-1993-00530A
The applicant does not have a PRF on file for the CY91B board because at the CY91B board an eligible officer had to receive a “Definitely Promote” (DP) recommendation to be considered for below-the-promotion zone (BPZ) consideration. By letter dated 1 September 1999, applicant provided additional comments for the Board’s consideration pertaining to the contested OPR, the officer evaluation system and promotion process. Therefore, we agree with the recommendation of the Air Force and adopt...