RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2006-01995
INDEX CODE: 111.05
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
MANDATORY COMPLETION DATE: 2 JANUARY 2008
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His referral Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) rendered for the period
30 April 2005 thru 29 April 2006 be upgraded.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
His referral EPR is unjust because it was based solely on an invalid
referral Letter of Evaluation (LOE) he received while deployed in Kuwait.
He was assigned as Noncommissioned Officer in Charge (NCOIC) of the supply
section on 1 Mar 06 and was removed as NCOIC on 5 Mar 06 and a new NCOIC
was assigned to the section. The new NCOIC supervised him from 10 March
2006 through 20 Mar 06 at which time he was transferred to another section
and received a referral LOE. The LOE was incomplete because the rater did
not include dates in the “From” and “Thru” sections of the form as required
by AFI 36-2406. In addition, a minimum of 60 days of supervision is
required to write a referral LOE. He left Kuwait on 30 Mar 06.
In support of the application, the applicant submits his personal
statement, a copy of the contested EPR, a copy of the referral EPR
memorandum, a copy of his rebuttal to the referral EPR, a copy of the LOE,
a copy of excerpts from AFI 37-2406, and a copy of his Air Force
Expeditionary Service Ribbon.
The applicant's complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The Military Personnel Database (MilPDS) indicates applicant’s Total Active
Federal Military Service Date as 18 Nov 92. He has been progressively
promoted to the grade of Staff Sergeant (E-5), effective and with a date of
rank of 1 Sept 01. The following is a resume of his EPR profile:
PERIOD ENDING PROMOTION RECOMMENDATION
* 29 Apr 06 3
29 Apr 05 5
11 Dec 04 5
5 Apr 04 5
5 Apr 03 5
5 Apr 02 4
5 Apr 01 4
28 Jan 00 3
28 Jan 99 4
15 May 98 4
15 May 97 3
15 May 96 5
15 May 95 4
25 Jul 94 4
*Contested report.
The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application, extracted from
the applicant’s military records, are contained in the letters prepared by
the appropriate office of the Air Force at Exhibits C & D.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
HQ AFPC/DPPPEP recommends denial of the applicant’s request. DPPPEP states
the applicant failed to provide any supporting documents proving the number
of days supervision is inaccurate. He addressed his concerns to the
additional rater in his rebuttal to the referral EPR. The additional rater
reviewed the information and still found the information to be accurate and
concurred with the assessment. DPPPEP agrees with the applicant in regards
to the missing dates on the referral LOE; however, they state it is not
grounds to void the report. DPPPEP opines it is a simple administrative
error and can be corrected to reflect the period covering his deployment.
DPPPEP states the applicant’s source document, AFI 36-2406, para 4.7l.5.1,
does not apply since the rater was not the person who completed the report.
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.
The complete DPPPEP evaluation is at Exhibit C.
HQ AFPC/DPPPWB defers to the recommendation of DPPPE regarding the
removal/correction of the EPR.
DPPPWB states the first time the contested report would normally have been
considered in the promotion process was cycle 06E6 to TSgt (promotions
effective Aug 06 – Jul 07). However, the fact that the EPR was a referral
rendered the applicant ineligible for consideration for promotion. Should
the AFBCMR void/correct the report as requested, providing he is otherwise
eligible, the applicant will be entitled to supplemental promotion
consideration beginning with cycle 06E6.
The complete DPPPWB evaluation is at Exhibit D.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
In his response dated 26 Aug 06, the applicant states the omission of the
“From and Thru” dates was not a simple administrative error but a
deliberate omission because the individuals writing the LOE knew they had
no legal right to prepare the evaluation. His rater did not attach the
referral LOE because he knew the LOE was invalid. He had personality
conflicts with his rater. He worked extremely hard in Kuwait and had good
results until the end of his deployment when his new supervisors arrived.
He believes the referral EPR was done in retaliation (Exhibit F).
_________________________________________________________________
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. We carefully considered the
applicant’s complete submission in judging the merits of the case; however,
we are not persuaded that the “Evaluation of Performance” or “Promotion
Recommendation” ratings on the contested report should be changed and/or
upgraded. We note the applicant’s contentions that the referral EPR was
based solely on a referral Letter of Evaluation (LOE) he received while
deployed and that the rater had insufficient supervision to render the LOE.
However, other than his own assertions, the applicant has not provided
sufficient evidence to substantiate the LOE was improperly rendered.
According to the applicant’s own submission, he was deployed for more than
the 60 days required to render the LOE. Additionally, as pointed out by
AFPC/DPPPEP, the additional rater considered the applicant’s assertions
regarding the LOE, yet chose to let the referral EPR stand. The commander
also indicated his concurrence with the referral report. We defer to
AFPC/DPPPEP on the administrative corrections recommended to the LOE.
Therefore, in the absence of compelling evidence to the contrary, we find
no basis to grant the relief sought in this application.
_________________________________________________________________
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 AFBCMR 2006-01995 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 was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 20 Jun 06, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. HQ AFPC/DPPPEP Letter, dated 29 Jul 06.
Exhibit D. HQ AFPC/DPPPWB Letter, dated 1 Aug 06.
Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 18 Aug 06.
Exhibit F. Applicant’s Rebuttal, dated 26 Aug 06.
JAMES W. RUSSELL III
Panel Chair
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...
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2006-03011
The rater provides a statement recommending the contested EPR be deleted as it was unjust and did not fit the applicant’s true performance. On 8 Nov 05, the applicant filed a second appeal, requesting the 3 Jun 04 report be deleted because of an unjust rating resulting from a “personnel [sic] conflict with the rater.” The ERAB returned the appeal without action, suggesting the applicant provide a reaccomplished EPR. A complete copy of the HQ AFPC/DPPPWB evaluation is at Exhibit...
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...
Too much emphasis was placed on a Letter of Admonition (LOA); there was bias by the additional rater; and, the number of days of supervision is incorrect. The HQ AFPC/DPPPEP evaluation is at Exhibit C. HQ AFPC/DPPPWB stated that the first time the contested report was considered in the promotion process was Cycle 01E7 to master sergeant (E-7), promotions effective Aug 01 - Jul 02. However, they do not, in the Board majority’s opinion, support a finding that the evaluators were unable to...
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...
Prior to 1989, when LOEs were attached to performance reports and filed in the record, the "from" date of the report was still determined by the close out date of the preceding report. A complete copy of their evaluation is attached at Exhibit E. APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant reviewed the advisory opinions and states that the time that lapsed between the EPR and the validation of the IG Report was more than 35 days. BASIS FOR REQUEST: Applicant bases this...
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2006-03161
His additional rater abused his authority to encourage his deployed supervisor to reissue a Letter of Evaluation (LOE) with a negative statement in order to substantiate his comments and ratings on the contested EPR. ________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: The additional rater of the contested EPR closing 9 November 2003, downgraded ratings rendered by the Rater in Section III, Evaluation of Performance, for “How Well Does Ratee Perform Assigned...
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 | CY2007 | BC-2007-00452
In support of his request, the applicant submits copies of his EPRs; performance feedback evaluations; awards and decorations; letters of support; leave and earnings statements; temporary duty (TDY) documentation; excerpts of Air Force Instruction (AFI) 36-2406; Application for Correction/Removal of Evaluation Reports and correspondence concerning supplemental board consideration. DPPPEP states a report is not erroneous or unfair because the applicant believes it contributed to a...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-01229
The complete evaluation is at Exhibit D. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant states he provided a constructed cause in effect document for consideration to breakdown much of what took place leading up to, and during, the period in question. After reviewing the documentation provided by the applicant and the evidence of record, the Board finds no persuasive evidence showing that the applicant was...