RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2006-02492
INDEX CODE: 111.05
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: YES
MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 20 FEB 08
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
Her Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) rendered for the period 19 July 2001
through 15 January 2003 be upgraded or declared void and removed from her
records.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
A rating of “3” is for an average airman. She states she was early for
duty every day, wore a sharp uniform, always acted in a professional
manner, and volunteered to help the squadron, base, and the local community
on several occasions after duty hours. She further states her rater was
removed from being the Non-Commissioned Officer In Charge (NCOIC) due to
several complaints from airmen under his leadership.
In support of her request, the applicant provided documents extracted from
her military personnel records.
Applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The applicant is currently serving in the Regular Air Force in the grade of
senior airman with a date of rank of 31 December 2003.
EPR profile since 2003 reflects the following:
PERIOD ENDING EVALUATION OF POTENTIAL
* 15 Jan 03 3
15 Jan 04 5
15 Jan 05 5
15 Jan 06 5
* Contested report.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
AFPC/DPPPEP recommends denial. DPPPEP states the applicant does not
provide any supporting documents to prove her report is unfair or
inaccurate. The applicant believes her report should be documented better.
However, changing a report for a personal convenience is inappropriate.
Statements from the evaluators during the contested period are
conspicuously absent. In order to successfully challenge the validity of
an evaluation report, it is important to hear from the evaluators — not
necessarily for support, but at least for clarification/explanation. The
applicant has not provided any such documentation. Without benefit of
these statements, DPPPEP can only conclude the EPR is accurate as written.
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 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.
The DPPPEP complete evaluation is at Exhibit C.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
On 22 September 2006, the evaluation was forwarded to the applicant for
review and comment within 30 days. As of this date, this office has
received no response.
_________________________________________________________________
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 an error or injustice. After reviewing all the evidence
provided, we are not persuaded that the contested report is erroneous or
unjust. In the rating process, each evaluator is required to assess a
ratee’s performance, honestly and to the best of their ability. In judging
the merits of this case, we took note of the applicant’s contention that
the contested report is inaccurate; however, other than her own assertion,
we have seen no evidence by the applicant which would lead us to believe
the rater abused his discretionary authority, that the rating was based on
inappropriate considerations, or that the report was technically flawed.
Therefore, 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 involved. Therefore, the request for
a hearing is not favorably considered.
_________________________________________________________________
THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:
The applicant be notified the evidence presented did not demonstrate the
existence of an error or an injustice; the application was denied without a
personal appearance; and 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 this application in Executive
Session on 2 November 2006, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:
Mr. James W. Russell III, Panel Chair
Mr. Todd L. Schafer, Member
Ms. Maureen B. Higgins, Member
The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket Number BC-
2006-02492 was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 12 Aug 06, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPPPEP, dated 15 Sep 06.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 22 Sep 06.
JAMES W. RUSSELL III
Panel Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2007-00240
DPPPWB’s complete evaluation is at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on 13 April 2007 for review and comment within 30 days. _________________________________________________________________ RECOMMENDATION OF THE BOARD: A majority of the panel finds insufficient evidence of error or injustice and recommends the application be denied. ...
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-2006-03011
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-2006-01862
_________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: His rater did not provide mid-term performance feedback on 1 March 2006 as indicated on the report, nor was verbal feedback provided from the endorsers. We note the applicant’s assertion that his chain of command did not provide written or verbal performance feedback; however, we also note the comments provided by the Air Force office of primary responsibility that although Air Force policy does...
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 | 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...
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2006-02543
They further state Air Force Instruction (AFI) 36- 2803, paragraph 3.3, states “Forward all recommendations through the normal chain of command of the person being recommended. A complete copy of the AFPC/DPPPWB evaluation is attached at Exhibit E. HQ AFPC/DPSO recommends the applicant’s request to have the LOR dated 20 September 2005 removed from her records be denied. The applicant did not provide persuasive evidence to establish that the LOR she received was unjust or unwarranted; the...
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...
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 01-02492 INDEX CODE: 111.02 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: The Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) rendered for the period 3 Mar 99 through 14 Oct 99 be declared void and removed from his records and restoration of his promotion to technical sergeant from the 99E6 promotion cycle, including back...
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2007-00685
_________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPPPEP recommends denial of the applicant’s request to correct the period of report on the 28 Feb 06 EPR. As stated in AFI 36-2401, A1.5.17, “The Air Force does not require the designated rater to be your immediate supervisor. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Applicant submitted a statement from his rater during the period...