RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2007-00240
INDEX CODE: 111.02
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
The Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) for the period 4 January 2004
through 6 October 2004 be removed from her record.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
The report is unjust due to a personality conflict between herself and
her rater. The personality conflict hindered her rater’s ability to
evaluate her performance fairly. She requested to be removed from her
rater’s supervision through her chain of command but was instructed to
give her rater a chance to be a fair evaluator. She does not believe
her rater attempted to be fair.
In support of her appeal, the applicant has provided a personal
statement and copies of several statements of support, the EPR in
question and previous EPR’s.
Applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
Applicant enlisted in the regular Air Force on 1 June 1987. She has
been progressively promoted to the grade of technical sergeant with a
date of rank (DOR) of 1 September 2003. She retired from the Air
Force on 1 August 2007 after having served for 20 years and 2 months.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
AFPC/DPPPEP recommends denial. DPPPEP states disagreements in the
work place are not unusual and do not necessarily substantiate that an
evaluator cannot be objective. Subordinates are required to abide by
their superior’s decisions. If there were a personality conflict
between the applicant and her rater, of such magnitude that the rater
could not be objective, DPPPEP believes the additional rater would
have known about it since the ratee indicates the rater and additional
rater were assigned to the same location. DPPPEP believes the
endorser (rater’s rater) would have made any necessary adjustments to
the applicant’s EPR if he had felt it necessary. The applicant has
not provided specific instances based on firsthand observation which
would substantiate the relationship between her and her rater was
strained to the point an objective evaluation was impossible. The
letters of support and other extraneous documents provided by the
applicant are not germane to the report in question. None of the
testimonials state the evaluators could not be objective in their
assessment of the applicant’s duty performance. Nor is DPPPEP
convinced of their ability to accurately assess her performance
considering they were not the individuals charged with performing the
evaluation. Air Force policy is that an evaluation 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. 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 - appropriate but
not provided in this case - it therefore appears the report was
accomplished in direct accordance with the applicable regulations.
DPPPEP’s complete evaluation is at Exhibit B.
AFPC/DPPPWB indicates based on the applicant’s DOR to technical
sergeant (TSgt), the first time the contested report was used in the
promotion process was cycle 06E7 to master sergeant (MSgt). Should
the AFBCMR remove the report as requested and she is considered
otherwise eligible she would be entitled to supplemental consideration
beginning with cycle 06E7. Even so, her total score would not
increase sufficiently to meet the promotion cutoff score required for
selection. Her total score was 277.35 and the score required for
selection in her Air Force Specialty (AFS) was 332.65. Removing the
contested EPR would only increase her weighted score by 6.08 points.
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. 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 error or injustice. We took notice of the
applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of the case;
however, the majority of the Board agrees with the opinions and
recommendation of the Air Force offices of primary responsibility and
adopts their rationale as the basis for their conclusion that the
applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice.
Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, the majority of
the Board finds no compelling basis to recommend granting the relief
sought in this application.
_________________________________________________________________
RECOMMENDATION OF THE BOARD:
A majority of the panel finds insufficient evidence of error or
injustice and recommends the application be denied.
_________________________________________________________________
The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket Number BC-
2007-00240 in Executive Session on 5 September 2007, under the
provisions of AFI 36-2603:
Mr. James W. Russell III, Panel Chair
Ms. Jan Mulligan, Member
Ms. Glenda H. Scheiner, Member
By a majority vote, the Board voted to deny the request. Ms. Mulligan
voted to correct the record but does not wish to submit a minority
report. The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 19 Jan 07, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Letter, AFPC/DPPPEP, dated 28 Feb 07.
Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPPPWB, dated 9 Mar 07.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 13 Apr 07.
JAMES W. RUSSELL III
Panel Chair
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 | 2006-03085
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2006-03085 INDEX CODE: 111.05 COUNSEL: NOT INDICATED HEARING DESIRED: YES MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 9 APR 2008 _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: The Enlisted Performance Reports (EPRs) closing out on 29 January 1997 and 30 December 1998 be declared void and removed from her records, and she receive supplemental promotion...
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2006-03085
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2006-03085 INDEX CODE: 111.05 COUNSEL: NOT INDICATED HEARING DESIRED: YES MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 9 APR 2008 _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: The Enlisted Performance Reports (EPRs) closing out on 29 January 1997 and 30 December 1998 be declared void and removed from her records, and she receive supplemental promotion...
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-2006-03969
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...
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 01-01882 INDEX CODE: 111.02 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: The Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) rendered for the period 25 Mar 99 through 24 Mar 00 be declared void and removed from her records. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Chief,...
AF | BCMR | CY2002 | BC-2002-02982
On 1 December 1997, the applicant submitted an appeal to the Evaluation Reports Appeal Board (ERAB) requesting her EPR for the period 11 January 1999 through 15 September 1999 be upgraded from an overall “4” to an overall “5.” On 21 September 2000, the ERAB notified the applicant’s military personnel office that her appeal was considered and denied. The AFPC/DPPPWB evaluation is at Exhibit D. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-02982
On 1 December 1997, the applicant submitted an appeal to the Evaluation Reports Appeal Board (ERAB) requesting her EPR for the period 11 January 1999 through 15 September 1999 be upgraded from an overall “4” to an overall “5.” On 21 September 2000, the ERAB notified the applicant’s military personnel office that her appeal was considered and denied. The AFPC/DPPPWB evaluation is at Exhibit D. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE...
A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit C. The Chief, Performance Evaluation Section, AFPC/DPPPEP, also reviewed this application and indicated that while the applicant believes the ratings and comments on the EPR are inconsistent with her prior and subsequent evaluations, that does not render the report erroneous or unjust. DPPPEP does not believe that a personality conflict existed between the applicant and the rater. A complete copy of their evaluation is...
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...