RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2006-02065
INDEX CODE: 111.02
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: YES
MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: Jan 14, 2008
________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
The Enlisted Performance Report (EPR), closing 14 November 2003, be removed
from his records.
________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
The rater of the contested report did not become his supervisor until 30
June 2003, he had only 22 days of supervision under the rater of the
contested EPR, and the rater did not meet minimum Air Force standards to
write an EPR.
In support of the appeal, applicant submits a copy of the contested EPR, a
Travel Voucher Summary showing he departed TDY on 22 July 2003 and remained
TDY until returning on 8 November 2003, and an On-the-Job Training Record
Continuation Sheet containing a written statement from an official other
than the rater of the contested report stating applicant was CRO’d to said
rater on 30 June 2003.
Applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.
________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
Applicant was discharged from Active Duty on 29 March 2004 and, since he is
no longer on Active Duty, cannot file an appeal through the Evaluation
Reports Appeal Board.
Applicant’s performance profile follows:
PERIOD ENDING OVERALL RATING
30 Nov 01 4
14 Nov 02 2 (referral)
14 Nov 03* 2 (referral)
*Contested Report
________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
AFPC/DPPPEP recommends the application be denied and states, in part, there
is no documentation, nor has applicant provided a statement from his rater
or any members of the rating chain, to support his claim that supervision
under the rater did not begin until 30 June 2003. Rather, applicant has
provided an On-the-Job Training Record Continuation Sheet which contains a
written statement from an official other than the rater of the contested
report stating applicant was “CRO’d” to said rater on 30 June 2003. This On-
The-Job Training Record Continuation Sheet is not an official document to
show when supervision began; additionally, it was not signed by the rater
of the contested report or the applicant and it also contains a statement
that an initial feedback session had already been accomplished with the
rater of the contested report but does not state when the supervision
began.
The AFPC/DPPPEP evaluation is at Exhibit C.
________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
A complete copy of the evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 22
September 2006 for review and comment within 30 days. However, as of this
date, no response has been received by this office.
________________________________________________________________
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 took notice of the applicant's
complete submission in judging the merits of the case; however, we agree
with the opinion and recommendation of the Air Force office of primary
responsibility and adopt its rationale as the basis for our conclusion that
the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice. Therefore,
in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no compelling basis to
recommend granting the relief sought in this application.
4. The applicant's case is adequately documented and it has not been shown
that a personal appearance with or without counsel will materially add to
our understanding of the issue(s) involved. Therefore, the request for a
hearing 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 Docket Number
BC-2006-02065 in Executive Session on 16 November 2006, under the
provisions of AFI 36-2603:
Mr. Thomas S. Markiewicz, Chair
Mr. James A. Wolffe, Member
Mr. James L. Sommer, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 03 Jul 06, w/atchs
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records
Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPPPEP, dated 12 Sep 06
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 22 Sep 06
THOMAS S. MARKIEWICZ
Chair
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 | CY2007 | BC-2006-01530
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2006-01530 INDEX CODE: 111.02 JAMES F. BANKS COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 20 November 2007 _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) rendered for the period 12 July 2002 through 4 May 2003 be voided and removed from his records. THOMAS S. MARKIEWICZ Chair AIR...
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-2006-02414
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-2006-03111
DPPPEP states the applicant did not file an appeal under the provisions of AFI 36-2401, Correcting Officer and Enlisted Evaluation Reports, 20 Feb 04. The Evaluation Reports Appeal Board (ERAB) agreed the reports contain several duplicate comments; however, they will not void a report that can be administratively corrected. The complete DPPPEP evaluation is at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: A copy of...
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...
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 | CY2006 | BC-2006-02322
The first time the contested report will be considered in the promotion process is cycle 07E7 to master sergeant. The complete evaluation is at Exhibit D. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on 22 Sep 06, for review and comment within 30 days. After reviewing the documentation provided by the applicant and the evidence of record, the Board finds no...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-00772
In support of his request, the applicant submits a copy of the Evaluation Reports Appeal Board (ERAB) denial letter dated 10 January 2003, a copy of the contested EPR, a copy of the referral EPR notification, a copy of supporting statements from his raters and additional rater, a copy of his TDY voucher, and his letter concerning his former commander. The applicant submitted an appeal to the Evaluation Reports Appeal Board (ERAB) in December 2002 requesting his EPR for the period 12 May...
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...