RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2006-02094
INDEX CODE: 111.05
xxxxxxxxxxxx COUNSEL: NOT INDICATED
HEARING DESIRED: YES
MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 14 JAN 2008
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
The Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) closing out on 15 July 2001 be
changed to reflect a rating of overall five.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
His personal problems contributed to his report being a four and the report
is not a fair assessment of his performance for this period.
In support of his request, the applicant provided a personal statement, a
copy of AF Form 910, Enlisted Performance Report closing 15 July 2001, a
copy of Superior Court of Houston County, State of Georgia Divorce Decree,
a copy of his College Transcript from Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University,
background information related to his Bootstrap Application, and a copy of
AF Form 422, Physical Profile Serial Report.
Applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force in the grade of airman
basic on 6 January 1999 for a term of 4 years. He was progressively
promoted to the grade of staff sergeant and currently serves in that grade.
His EPR profile reflects the following:
PERIOD ENDING EVALUATION OF POTENTIAL
15 Jul 05 5
15 Jul 04 5
15 Jul 03 5
15 Jul 02 5
15 Jul 01 4
15 Jul 00 5
* Contested report
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
AFPC/DPPPEP recommends denial. DPPPEP states Air Force policy is that an
evaluation report is accurate as written when it becomes a matter of
record. To effectively challenge an EPR, it is necessary to hear from all
the members of the rating chain-not only for support, but also for
clarification/explanation. The applicant has failed to provide any
information/support from the rating chain of the contested EPR. An
evaluation report is considered to represent the rating chain’s best
judgment at the time it is rendered. Once a report is accepted for file,
only strong evidence to the contrary warrants correction or removal from an
individual’s record. The burden of proof is on the applicant. He has not
substantiated the contested report was not rendered in good faith by all
evaluators based on knowledge available at the time. It appears the report
was accomplished in direct accordance with applicable regulations.
The complete evaluation is at Exhibit C.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 15 Sep
06, for review and comment within 30 days. 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.
3. Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the
existence of error or injustice. The applicant contends the contested EPR
is unjust and should be removed from his records. After reviewing the
documentation provided by the applicant and the evidence of record, the
Board finds no persuasive evidence showing that the applicant was rated
unfairly, that the report is in error, or that the evaluators were biased
and prejudiced against the applicant. In our opinion, the evaluators were
responsible for assessing the applicant’s performance during the period in
question and are presumed to have rendered his evaluations based on their
observation of the applicant’s performance. Therefore, we agree with the
opinions 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. In the
absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no compelling basis to
recommend granting the relief sought.
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 an 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 Docket Number BC-2006-
02094 in Executive Session on 26 October 2006 under the provisions of AFI
36-2603:
Mr. Michael J. Novel, Panel Chair
Ms. Mary C. Puckett, Member
Mr. Todd L. Schafer, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 23 Jun 06, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPPPEP, dated 1 Sep 06.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 15 Sep 06.
MICHAEL J. NOVEL
Panel Chair
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-2006-01402
AFPC/DPPPEP's complete evaluation is at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 23 June 2006 for review and comment within 30 days. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating to APPLICANT be corrected to show that the...
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 | CY2006 | BC-2006-02413
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2006-02413 INDEX CODE: 111.02 XXXXXXX COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 15 FEB 2008 ___________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His enlisted performance report (EPR) closing 15 Jul 05 rating of 3B be nullified. The applicant has not provided any statements from his rating chain nor official...
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC2006-02244
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2006-02244 INDEX CODE: XXXXXXX COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 28 JAN 2008 ___________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her referral officer performance report (OPR) closing 31 May 00 and all attachments be removed from her permanent record and that the corrected record be considered by a Special...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-02652
_________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant’s counsel replies that they have demonstrated an unequivocal nexus between the senior rater and the contested OPR. Considering the documented demeaning attitude her senior rater had towards women, we find it feasible to believe the applicant’s senior rater may have inappropriately influenced the additional rater’s downgrading of the report in question. NOVEL Panel...
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2007-01709
In support of the application, the applicant submits copies of her Application for Correction/Removal of Evaluation Reports (AF Fm 948), the contested EPR, a Memo for Record, a Letter of Reprimand (LOR) and rebuttal, her child's medical records, a List of her Life Skills appointments, a Letter of Evaluation (LOE), and duty status reports. DPPPEP states the Evaluations Reports Appeals Board (ERAB) reviewed and denied the applicant's request on 24 Apr 06. While the applicant provided...
AF | BCMR | CY2009 | BC-2008-03399
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2008-03399 INDEX CODE: 111.02 XXXXXXX COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ___________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) closing 8 Sep 06 be voided and removed from his record. HQ AFPC/DPPPEP’s complete evaluation is at Exhibit...
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...