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.
___________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
His rating was the result of unfair bias on the part of his
supervisor due to a personality conflict. He believes the
documentation in the report does not support the rating.
Applicant’s complete submission, with attachment, is at Exhibit A.
___________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
Applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 13 Nov 01 for a
period of six years. He was progressively promoted to the rank of
senior airman with a date of rank of 14 May 04. He is currently
serving as a Maintenance Operations Controller.
A resume of applicant’s EPR profile follows:
PERIOD CLOSING OVERALL EVALUATION
15 Jul 03 4
15 Jul 04 5
* 15 Jul 05 3
15 Jul 06 4
* The contested report rendered for the period 16 Jul 04 –
15 Jul 05, reflects 306 days of supervision. (The longest period
of supervision for any report).
___________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
HQ AFPC/DPPPEP reviewed this application and recommended denial.
The applicant did not file an appeal under the provisions of AFI 36-
2401, Correcting Officer and Enlisted Evaluation Reports,
20 Feb 04.
Air Force policy states 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 on the contested EPR. In
the absence of information from evaluators, official substantiation
of error or injustice from the Inspector General (IG) or Military
Equal Opportunity is appropriate, but not provided in this case.
It appears the report was accomplished in direct accordance with
applicable instructions.
The applicant contends a personality conflict existed between
himself and his rater. In worker-supervisor relationships, some
disagreements are likely to occur since a worker must abide by a
supervisor’s policies and decisions. Personnel who do not perform
at expected standards or require close supervision may believe that
an evaluator is personally biased; however, the conflict generated
by this personal attention is usually professional rather than
personal. The applicant has not provided any statements from his
rating chain nor official documentation to prove a personality
conflict existed in this instance.
A complete copy of the 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 22 Sep 06 for review and comment within 30 days. As of this
date, no response has been received by this office (Exhibit D).
___________________________________________________________________
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. The applicant
contends that the ratings were the result of unfair bias on the
part of his supervisor due to a personality conflict. However,
other than his own assertions, he did not present any corroborative
evidence from his rating chain or chain of command to support his
contention of error or injustice. Nor did he provide any evidence
to show the contested report is an inaccurate or unfair assessment
of his overall duty performance during the contested rating period
or that the contested report was prepared contrary to the governing
instruction. Therefore, we agree with the opinion and
recommendation of the Air Force office of primary responsibility
and adopt the rationale expressed as the basis for our decision
that the applicant has failed to sustain his burden of having
suffered either an error or injustice. In the absence of
persuasive 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 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 AFBCMR Docket Number
BC-2006-02413 in Executive Session on 15 November 2006, under the
provisions of AFI 36-2603:
Ms. B. J. White-Olson, Panel Chair
Mr. Wallace F. Beard Jr., Member
Mr. Patrick C. Daugherty, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 13 Jun 06, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPPEP, dated 7 Sep 06.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 22 Sep 06.
B. J. WHITE-OLSON
Panel Chair
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 | 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-2006-03817
The purpose of the feedback session is to give the ratee direction and to define performance expectations for the rating period in question. The complete evaluation is at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant states the performance feedback work sheet is used to tell a ratee what is expected regarding duty performance and how well expectations are being met. After reviewing the documentation...
AF | BCMR | CY2002 | BC-2002-02383
As a result, the indorser changed the EPR to reflect nonconcurrence and the higher rating of “5.” He also has the commander’s signature concurring with the indorser’s decision to upgrade the report. A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit B. HQ AFPC/DPPPWB also reviewed the appeal and advises that, should the Board upgrade the report as requested, the applicant would be entitled to supplemental promotion consideration beginning with cycle 01E6 and would become a selectee pending...
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 | CY2007 | BC-2006-03455
________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: The contested EPR was a Change of Reporting Official (CRO) report covering 188 days of supervision for the period 3 April 2005 through 7 October 2005. To effectively challenge an EPR, it is necessary to hear from all members of the rating chain – not only for support, but also for clarification/explanation, and applicant has failed to provide any information/support from the rating chain on the contested...
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 | CY2005 | BC-2005-02401
In support of his appeal, applicant submitted a personal statement; copies of his AF Forms 931, Performance Feedback Worksheet (AB thru TSGT), dated 14 May 03 and 28 Oct 03; contested EPR, closing 19 Dec 03, and letters of reference from co-workers and associates. However, he has not provided any statements from his rating chain nor official documentation (report of investigation from the IG or MEO) to prove the evaluation report is an inaccurate assessment of performance. Therefore, we...
AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-02557
_________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: His rater did not provide him with a mid-term feedback and there is evidence to support that a personality conflict existed between him and his rater. He asked for feedback and notified his chain-of-command that he was not provided feedback. In the absence of any evidence of unfair treatment or injustice, DPSID finds that the ratings were given fairly and IAW all Air Force policies and procedures.
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-00307
The applicant fails to state what information on the report made it "weak". The DPPPEP evaluation is at Exhibit C. AFPC/DPPPR recommends denial. Other than his own assertions, we are not persuaded by the evidence presented that his rating chain abused their authority.