RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2006-03111
INDEX CODE: 111.15
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
MANDATORY COMPLETION DATE: 14 APRIL 2008
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His Enlisted Performance Reports (EPRs) for the periods of 27 Nov 2002 thru
26 Dec 2003; 27 Dec 2003 thru 26 Dec 2004; and 27 Dec 2004 thru 15 Jun 2005
be removed from his records.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
a. He was rated unfairly, during this period.
b. Normally, three EPRs would extend over a 36-month time frame;
however, his were received over 22 months.
c. The first EPR covered a 13-month period in which he was only
under the supervision of his rater for 4 of the 13 months.
d. Numerous bullets were cut and pasted from one EPR and duplicated
into another.
In support of his application, the applicant submits his personal
statement, chronology of events, copies of his EPRs, and copies of letters
of appreciation, awards, letters of character references, etc.
The applicant's complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The applicant is currently serving on active duty in the grade of Senior
Airman with a date of rank of 24 Apr 01.
A resume of his EPRs follows:
Closeout Date Overall Rating
26 Dec 03 3
26 Dec 04 3
15 Jun 05 (Referral) 3
15 Jun 06 5
The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application, extracted from
the applicant’s military records, are contained in the letter prepared by
the appropriate office of the Air Force at Exhibit C.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
HQ AFPC/DPPPEP recommends denial. 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.
DPPPEP states the applicant has not provided specific instances based on
first hand observation which substantiate the relationship between him and
his rater was strained to the point an objective evaluation was impossible.
The letters of support and other extraneous documents that the applicant
provided are not germane to the reports in question. None of the
testimonials submitted state his evaluators could not be objective in their
assessment of the applicant’s duty performance.
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 reports have been administratively
corrected as directed by the ERAB.
The complete DPPPEP 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 9 Mar
07 for review and comment within 30 days. As of this date, this office has
received no response (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 probable error or injustice. We carefully considered the
applicant’s complete submission in judging the merits of the case; however,
we are not persuaded that the contested reports should be removed from his
records. Other than his own assertions, the applicant has not provided
sufficient evidence to substantiate the contested reports were improperly
rendered. We defer to AFPC/DPPPEP on the administrative corrections taken
on the corrected reports. Therefore, in the absence of compelling evidence
to the contrary, we find no basis to grant the relief sought in this
application.
_________________________________________________________________
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 BC-2006-03111 in
Executive Session on 2 May 2007, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:
Mr. James W. Russell, III, Panel Chair
Ms. Mary C. Puckett, Member
Mr. Clarence R. Anderegg, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 08 Oct 06, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. AFPC/DPPEP Letter, dated 5 Mar 07.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 9 Mar 07.
JAMES W. RUSSELL, III
Panel 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-2006-03969
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 | 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-2006-03161
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...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-02524
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2005-02524 INDEX NUMBER: 111.00, 131.00 XXXXXXX COUNSEL: NONE XXXXXXX HEARING DESIRED: NO MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 15 MAR 2007 ___________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His Officer Performance Report (OPR) rendered for the period 20 Mar 03 through 19 Mar 04, be removed from his records and he be considered for promotion to the...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2012 05342
The Evaluation Report Appeals Board (ERAB) directed that his EPR closing 29 Jun 06 be replaced; however, he should have been provided supplemental promotion consideration for promotion cycles 07E8 and 08E8. Regarding the applicants contention his EPR covering the period 1 Apr 05 through 30 Sep 06, which is only a matter of record because he requested that it replace another report, was in error because it was not signed by his additional rater at the time in violation of AFI 36-2406, the...
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 | 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 | 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 | CY2007 | BC-2007-00777
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2007-00777 INDEX CODE: 111.05 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES MANDATORY COMPLETION DATE: 14 OCTOBER 2008 _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) for the period 30 Jul 2001 thru 29 Jul 2002 be amended or removed from his records. DPPPEP states the applicant did not file an appeal under the...