RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2006-01862
INDEX CODE: 111.02
XXXXXXXXXXXXX COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 4 December 2007
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) rendered for the period of 3 May 2005
through 4 May 2006 be voided and removed from his records.
_________________________________________________________________
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. In addition, his EPR was closed out at the intermediate level
with no regard to his Community College of the Air Force (CCAF) and
Professional Military Education (PME) completions.
In support of his request, the applicant submits a copy of his EPR in
question and personnel data verification brief. The applicant’s complete
submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
According to the military personnel data system, the applicant is currently
serving on active duty in the rank of master sergeant with a date of rank
of 1 July 2003. He has a Total Active Federal Military Service Date of 20
March 1987 and a projected date of retirement/separation of 31 May 2007.
The following is a resume of the applicant’s EPR profile:
PERIOD ENDING PROMOTION RECOMMENDATION
21 Feb 98 (SSgt) 5
21 Feb 99 5
21 Feb 00 5
21 Feb 01 (TSgt) 5
21 Feb 02 5
1 Oct 02 5
1 Oct 03 (MSgt) 5
1 Jun 04 5
1 May 05 5
4 May 06* 5
*Contested report
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
AFPC/DPPPEP recommends denial of the applicant’s request to void his EPR
closing on 4 May 2006. DPPPEP states Air Force policy requires performance
feedback for personnel to be accomplished; however, a rater’s failure to
conduct a required or requested feedback session will not invalidate any
subsequent performance report. Feedback by itself is not sufficient to
challenge the accuracy or justness of a report. The applicant failed to
provide support showing that the rater did not provide counseling or
feedback and that this directly resulted in an unfair evaluation. In
response to the applicant’s comment about his report closing out at the
intermediate level, there is nothing in the regulation that states a Senior
Rater endorsement is automatic upon completion of both Senior Non-
Commissioned Officer Academy (SNCOA) and CCAF.
The AFPC/DPPPEP evaluation is at Exhibit B.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 19
July 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. Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the
existence of probable error or injustice warranting favorable consideration
of the applicant’s request that the contested report be removed from his
records. 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 require performance feedback for
personnel, a direct correlation between information provided during
feedback and the assessment on evaluation reports need not necessarily
exist. In response to the applicant’s contention that his EPR should have
had a Senior Rater endorsement because of his completion of SNCOA and CCAF,
we note there is nothing in the regulation that states a Senior Rater
endorsement is automatic upon completion of either PME or CCAF. In view of
the above and in the absence of evidence showing the contested report is an
inaccurate depiction of his performance during the rating period in
question, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of the Air Force
office of primary responsibility. Accordingly, the applicant’s request to
void his EPR is not favorably considered.
_________________________________________________________________
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 28 September 2006, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:
Mr. James W. Russell, III, Panel Chair
Mr. Alan A. Blomgren, Member
Mr. Grover L. Dunn, Member
The following documentary evidence for AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2006-01862
was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 12 Jun 06, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Letter, AFPC/DPPPEP, dated 19 Jul 06.
Exhibit C. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 28 Jul 06.
JAMES W. RUSSELL, III
Panel Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2008 | BC-2007-03849
He was told the contested EPR was influenced by a lieutenant colonel at Vandenberg, Air Force Base because he had not completed his Community College of the Air Force (CCAF) degree and was not enrolled in Course 12, Senior Noncommissioned Officer Academy (SNCOA). ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant responded stating he is not contesting the senior rater endorsement. ...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-01686
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2006-01686 INDEX CODE: 111.01, 111.05, 131.01 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 8 Dec 07 _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: The Officer Performance Reports (OPR) for the periods 1 Mar 02 through 28 Feb 03 and 1 Mar 03 through 2 Jul 03 be modified by adding command push and professional military...
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2006-03769
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2006-03769 INDEX CODE: 111.02 XXXXXXX COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 15 JUN 2008 ___________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His rating on his Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) closing 19 May 2006, be changed from an overall “4” to a “5”; the endorsement level be upgraded to “Senior Rater Deputy”...
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2006-03031
He believes his additional rater, one who’s well-versed in writing USAF OPRs, should/would have known excluding the PME recommendation was a clear negative signal to any promotion board, as it is with Navy boards. The performance feedback date is considered an administrative error/correction. The applicant contends he was not provided official feedback and that he believes the lack of a PME recommendation was retribution for his recommendation to the BRAC process.
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2006-03969
In support of her request, the applicant submitted copies of an excerpt of AFI 36-2406; AFPC/DPMM memorandum dated 11 April 2006; Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records (AFBCMR) letter dated 16 December 2005; two Air Force Review Boards Agency (AFRBA) letters dated 16 December 2005; Evaluation Reports Appeal Board (ERAB) Decision; proposed EPR closing 14 January 2005; contested EPR closing 14 January 2005; Meritorious Service Medal documents; and EPR closing 14 January 2006 and...
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2006-03204
Applicant states the evaluation of performance markings do not match up with the rater/additional rater's comments and promotion recommendation. 3.8.5.2 states do not suspense or require raters to submit signed/completed reports any earlier than five duty days after the close-out date. The applicant contends that he did not receive feedback and that neither the rater, nor the additional rater was his rater’s rater.
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-01662
The following is a resume of the applicant’s EPR profile: PERIOD ENDING PROMOTION RECOMMENDATION 15 Oct 02 5 15 Oct 03* 4 15 Oct 04 5 15 Oct 05 5 *Contested reports The ERAB considered and denied the applicant’s request to remove the contested report on 18 October 2005. However, 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...
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2006-02720
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBERS: BC-2006-02720 INDEX CODE: 100.05, 131.01 XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 11 March 2008 __________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His records be considered by Special Selection Board (SSB) by the Calendar Year 2005A (CY05A) (6 Jul 05) (P0505A) Lieutenant Colonel (Lt Col) Central...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-02532
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2006-02532 INDEX CODE: 111.02 XXXXXXXXXX COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 26 FEB 2008 ___________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His enlisted performance report closing 15 Jan 04 be voided. There may be occasions when feedback was not provided during a reporting period. A complete copy of the...
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2007-00914
___________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: HQ AFPC/DPPPEP reviewed this application and recommended denial. ___________________________________________________________________ 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...