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.
___________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
The amount of actual supervision was not enough time to render a
proper EPR for an entire year, while he and his rater were TDY.
His rater was deployed and did not return until Jan 05. She
separated on 15 Sep 05; however his EPR was not signed until
21 Nov 05. At the time his EPR was signed his rater was no longer
a member of the unit or his supervisor. He does not believe his
rater signed his report and that his rating was changed without her
approval.
In support of his appeal, applicant submitted a statement from the
Flight Chief, Target; copies of his TDY documents, and other
support documents.
Applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.
___________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
Applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 16 Aug 95. He is
currently serving in the grade of technical sergeant with a date of
rank 1 Mar 06 and a duty title of NCOIC, C4I Targets.
The applicant filed an appeal under the provisions of AFI 36-2401,
Correcting Officer and Enlisted Evaluation Reports, 20 Feb 04. The
Evaluation Reports Appeal Board (ERAB) denied the applicant’s
request, however directed the days of supervision be changed to
reflect “154”.
A resume of applicant’s EPR profile follows:
PERIOD CLOSING OVERALL EVALUATION
08 Nov 98 5
26 Apr 99 5
26 Apr 00 5
26 Apr 01 5
01 Oct 01 5
01 Oct 02 5
13 Sep 03 5
13 Sep 04 5
* 13 Sep 05 4
17 Jul 06 5
* - The contested report rendered for the period 14 Sep 04 –
13 Sep 05 was corrected to reflect 154 days of supervision. The
rater and additional rater signed the report on 21 Nov 05.
___________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
HQ AFPC/DPPPEP reviewed this application and recommended denial,
stating, in part, the applicant provided documentation to show his
time TDY. Those changes were already made to the EPR when the days
of supervision were changed by direction of the ERAB. He provided
a memo from the Flight Chief of Targets, stating the rater was TDY
from 1 Sep 04 to 18 Jan 05. Unfortunately, the memo is not an
official document proving the rater was TDY during that time
period. The applicant must provide some sort of official
documentation such as a travel voucher or TDY orders proving the
applicant went TDY from that time period. In its absence, the
applicant could provide a memo from the rater herself stating when
she was TDY. The applicant failed to provide accurate support to
prove there was insufficient supervision to complete the report.
HQ AFPC/DPPPEP’s complete evaluation is at Exhibit C.
HQ AFPC/DPPPWB deferred to the recommendation of DPPPEP, stating in
part, the first time the contested report will be used in the
promotion process is cycle 08E7 to master sergeant (promotions
effective Aug 08 – Jul 09). Should the report be voided as
requested, providing the applicant is otherwise eligible, he would
be entitled to supplemental consideration beginning with cycle
08E7.
HQ AFPC/DPPPWB’s complete evaluation is at Exhibit D.
___________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
In his response to the evaluation, applicant reiterated his
original contentions that his rater was TDY and not on active duty
to sign the contested report.
In support of his appeal, applicant provided a personal statement;
a letter from his commander, and additional documents from his
former rater (substantiating insufficient days of supervision to
warrant a report).
Applicant’s complete response, with attachments, is at 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. Sufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate
the existence of error or injustice warranting a correction to the
record. The applicant contends that there was not a sufficient
number of days of supervision to complete a performance report.
After careful consideration of the applicant’s request and the
information submitted in his behalf, including the documentation
from his commander and his rater, we agree. The ERAB has corrected
the EPR to reflect 154 days of supervision. The applicant’s rater
provided a copy of her orders reflecting that she went TDY on or
about 2 Sep 04, for a period of 119 days. Since the governing Air
Force instruction requires a minimum of 120 days of supervision, it
appears that there was not a sufficient number of days of
supervision to warrant a report. Therefore, we believe that any
doubt should be resolved in the applicant’s favor. For this
reason, we recommend the applicant’s EPR closing 13 Sep 05 be
voided and that he be considered for supplemental promotion
consideration beginning with cycle 08E7.
___________________________________________________________________
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT:
The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force
relating to APPLICANT, be corrected to show that:
a. The AF IMT 910, Enlisted Performance Report (AB thru
TSGT) rendered for the period 14 September 2004 through
13 September 2005, be and hereby is, voided.
b. He be provided supplemental consideration for promotion
to the grade of master sergeant for promotion cycle 08E7.
If AFPC discovers any adverse factors during or subsequent to
supplemental consideration that are separate and apart, and
unrelated to the issues involved in this application, that would
have rendered the applicant ineligible for this promotion, such
information will be documented and presented to the Board for a
final determination on the individual's qualifications for the
promotion.
___________________________________________________________________
The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket Number
BC-2006-02414 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
All members voted to correct the records, as recommended. The
following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 27 Jul 06, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPPEP, dated 20 Sep 06.
Exhibit D. Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPPWB, dated 21 Sep 06.
Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 6 Oct 06.
Exhibit F. Letter, Applicant, dated 1 Nov 06, w/atchs.
B. J. WHITE-OLSON
Panel Chair
AFBCMR BC-2006-02414
MEMORANDUM FOR THE CHIEF OF STAFF
Having received and considered the recommendation of the Air
Force Board for Correction of Military Records and under the
authority of Section 1552, Title 10, United States Code (70A Stat
116), it is directed that:
The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air
Force relating to XXXXXXX, XXXXXXX, be corrected to show that:
a. The AF IMT 910, Enlisted Performance Report (AB thru
TSGT) rendered for the period 14 September 2004 through
13 September 2005, be and hereby is, voided.
b. He be provided supplemental consideration for promotion
to the grade of master sergeant for promotion cycle 08E7.
If AFPC discovers any adverse factors during or subsequent to
supplemental consideration that are separate and apart, and
unrelated to the issues involved in this application, that would
have rendered the applicant ineligible for this promotion, such
information will be documented and presented to the Board for a
final determination on the individual's qualifications for the
promotion.
JOE G. LINEBERGER
Director
Air Force Review Boards Agency
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...
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-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...
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 02-01667 INDEX CODE: 111.02 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His Enlisted Performance Report (EPR), rendered for the period 2 Feb 97 through 1 Feb 98, be replaced with the reaccomplished EPR provided; and, that he be provided supplemental promotion consideration to the grade of senior master...
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBERS: 01-02507 INDEX CODE 111.02 111.03 111.05 COUNSEL: None HEARING DESIRED: Not Indicated _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: The Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) closing 12 May 99 be declared void and removed from his records _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: His evaluators were...
_________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: HQ AFPC/DPPPWB addressed the supplemental promotion consideration issue should the applicant’s request be approved. DPPPWB stated that the first time the contested report was considered in the promotion process was Cycle 97E5 to staff sergeant (E-5), promotions effective Sep 97 - Aug 98. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Having...
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-2006-01516
She believes if the awards were included in her EPR, her board score would have been higher and she subsequently would have been promoted to senior master sergeant during the 04E8 cycle. She believes the advisor inaccurately states she was considered for promotion three times after her EPR became a matter of record. It is further recommended that she be provided supplemental consideration for promotion to the grade of senior master sergeant (E-8) for promotion cycle 04E8.
A similar appeal was filed under AFI 36-2401, Correcting Officer and Enlisted Evaluation Reports, which was denied by the Evaluation Reports Appeal Board (ERAB) on 2 Apr 98. The EPR was designed to provide a rating for a specific period of time based on the performance noted during that period, not based on previous performance. A complete copy of their evaluation, with attachment, is attached at Exhibit D. __________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S...
In support of his appeal, the applicant submits copies of his two earlier appeals to the Evaluation Report Appeal Board (ERAB) under AFI 3 6 - 2 4 0 1 , with reaccomplished EPRs submitted to the E m . A copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit C. The Chief, Evaluation Procedures Section, HQ AFPC/DPPPEP, reviewed the application and recommends applicant's request be denied. After reviewing the documentation submitted with this application, it appears the applicant was rated...