RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2006-03291
INDEX CODE:
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
The Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) dated 2 June 2005 to 1 June 2006
be removed from his record.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
The markings on the EPR are totally inconsistent with his performance
over the rating period especially in view of the awards he and his
section won. He won the Air Combat Command (ACC) Professional
Provider of the Year for 2005. The 20 LRS commander coined him. He
won Superior Performer of the month for November 2005 and he was
submitted for Stripes for Exceptional Performers (STEP) and many other
awards. The people in his section received many awards and their
Logistics Standardization and Evaluation Team (LSET) in April 2006 was
flawless. Further, the dates the EPR indicates he received feedback
are incorrect.
In support of his appeal, the applicant has provided copies of the EPR
in question and nominations for two awards: The Lance P Sijan
Leadership Award and the STEP program.
Applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
Applicant is currently serving in the Regular Air Force as a technical
sergeant with a date of rank (DOR) of 1 September 2001. His Expiration
Term of Service (ETS) is currently 5 October 2009.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
AFPC/DPPPEP recommends denial. DPPPEP states the applicant did not
file an appeal under the provisions of Air Force Instruction (AFI) 36-
2401, Correcting Officer and Enlisted Evaluation Reports. He contends
his feedback dates are incorrect yet fails to provide the correct
dates. He also failed to provide any documentation supporting his
claim the EPR was inaccurate or unjust as written.
Air Force policy on correcting EPR’s is that an EPR is accurate as
written when the report becomes a matter of record. To effectively
challenge an EPR the applicant must provide clear evidence the EPR was
unjust or inaccurate and he must provide a substitute report and/or
supporting documentation signed by all the original evaluators on the
report. He provided no such documents.
DPPPEP’s complete evaluation is at Exhibit C.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
Applicant states he is currently applying to have his EPR removed in
accordance with AFI 36-2401, Correcting Officer and Enlisted
Evaluation Reports. He contends he is also corresponding with his
Congressman.
_________________________________________________________________
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. We took notice of the
applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of the case;
however, we agree with the opinion 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. As EPR’s are considered accurate as written when
they become a matter of record, we noted he has thus far failed to
submit further information including clear evidence the report was
unjust or inaccurate, a substitute report, and/or signed support from
all evaluators in the rating chain who signed the original EPR.
Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no
compelling basis to recommend granting 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 Docket Number BC-
2006-03291 in Executive Session on 24 January 2007, under the
provisions of AFI 36-2603:
Ms. Charlene M. Bradley, Panel Chair
Ms. Janet I Hassan, Member
Ms. Barbara R. Murray, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 17 Aug 08, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Letter, AFPC/DPPPEP, dated 1 Nov 06.
Exhibit C. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 9 Nov 06.
CHARLENE M. BRADLEY
Panel Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2002 | BC-2002-01489
The applicant did not file an appeal under the provisions of AFI 36- 2401, Correcting Officer and Enlisted Evaluation Reports. Evaluators should consider each section of the evaluation when determining the final rating of the member. As for the letter from his rater to Major W--- --- RCG/RSC dated 14 Feb 02 that outlined his successful nurse recruiting efforts totally conflicts with the rating in section III of the EPR.
AF | BCMR | CY2002 | BC-2002-01683
In support of the applicant's appeal, he submits a copy of the contested EPR, AF Form 948, Application For Correction/Removal of Evaluation Reports, a statement from his rater, and the ERAB report. It would be necessary for the applicant to provide a corrected EPR with his application to the ERAB. The AFPC/DPPPWB evaluation is attached at Exhibit D. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant reviewed the...
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2006-03010
AFI 36-2401 clearly states a report is not erroneous or unfair because an applicant believes it contributed to his nonselection. The complete HQ AFPC/DPPPEP evaluation is at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant contends the advisory evaluation is inaccurate, misleading and mischaracterizes his request. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-03017
On 17 April 2001, the applicant filed an AF Form 1168 (Statement of Suspect/Witness/Complaint) contending that his signature was forged on a notification feedback letter for the EPR closing 5 March 2001. The validity of the document the applicant alleges to have been forged cannot be verified and the applicant has not provided any evidence to substantiate the report was not an accurate of assessment of his performance during the rating period. After reviewing the available evidence, the...
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2006-02412
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2006-02412 INDEX CODE: COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: While there is no clear request listed by the applicant, it appears he wants his Officer Performance Report (OPR) dated 14 November 2003 to 13 November 2004, section VI, Line 8 changed to read “Powered 1st AMC mission to Iran in 23...
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2007-00432
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2007-00432 INDEX CODE: 111.02 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 18 AUGUST 2008 _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: The Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) rendered for the period ending 10 April 2006 be substituted with a reaccomplished report. DPPPEP states the substitute report the applicant...
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2006-02449
DPPPEP’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 9 November 2006 for review and comment within 30 days of each letter. We took notice of the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of the case; however, we agree with the opinions and recommendations of the Air Force offices of primary responsibility...
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...
The applicant’s request under AFI 36-2401 to have the contested EPR removed from his records was denied by the Evaluation Reports Appeals Board (ERAB). The AFPC/DPPPWB evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit C. AFPC/DPPPEP recommends the application be denied. After a thorough review of the evidence of record and applicant’s submission, we are not persuaded that the contested report is an inaccurate assessment of his performance during the contested rating period.
Noting the rater’s statement of support, DPPPA stated the rater indicates he decided to change his evaluation and overall rating based on “performance feedback that was not available during the time of her rating considerations and post discussions with one of her past supervisors.” The rater has not stated what he knows now that he did not know when the original EPR was prepared. Applicant’s complete response is at Exhibit...