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.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
The report in question is unjust due to the omission of his nomination
for the Lance P. Sijan award.
In support of his application, applicant provided a personal
statement, a copy of the contested report and a reaccommplished
report.
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
master sergeant (MSgt).
The applicant did not file an appeal under the provisions of AFI 36-
2401, Correcting Officer and Enlisted Evaluation Reports (ERAB).
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
AFPC/DPPPEP recommends the requested relief be denied. DPPPEP states
the substitute report the applicant provided was not accomplished in
compliance with Air Force Instruction (AFI) 36-2401, Correcting
Officer and Enlisted Evaluation Reports. The regulation states, “If
you are requesting a report be reaccomplished, you must furnish a
substitute report in your appeal case. The substitute report must be
signed by the evaluators who signed the original report (this includes
the commander on EPRs). Only for extremely compelling reasons may the
original evaluators be removed from the substitute. Simple PCS or
retirement are usually not sufficient reasons.” The substitute report
provided by the applicant was not signed by the original additional
rater; nor, was it endorsed by the reviewer.
The AFI further states, “The ERAB will not change (except for
deletion) an evaluator’s ratings or comments if the evaluator does not
support the change. When an evaluator supports changing ratings, all
subsequent evaluators (including the commander on EPRs) must also
agree to the changes." The applicant has failed to provide the
required documentation and a substitute report that complies with the
AFI.
Air Force policy is that evaluation reports are considered accurate as
written unless substantial evidence to the contrary is provided. The
reviewer of the report has not been heard from. Each evaluator on a
performance report is charged with determining the content of their
comments. While the ratee and rater are encouraged to provide input,
the additional rater or reviewer is not required to use it.
Evaluation reports receive exhaustive reviews prior to becoming a
matter of record. Any report can be rewritten to be more hard hitting
or to enhance a ratee’s potential. But the time to do that is before
the report becomes a matter of record.
The AFPC/DPPPEP evaluation is attached at Exhibit C.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on
20 June 2007, for review and comment within 30 days. As of this date,
no response has been received by this office.
_________________________________________________________________
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 an injustice. Applicant’s contentions
are duly noted; however, we do not find his assertions, in and by
themselves, sufficiently persuasive to override the rationale provided
by the Air Force. The applicant contends his report for the period
ending 10 April 2006 was unjust due to the omission of an award
nomination. The applicant provided a reaccomplished report to replace
the contested report. However, the reaccomplished report does not
meet the criteria established by AFI 36-2401 for substituting a
performance report. Therefore, in the absence of such, 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-
2007-00432 in Executive Session on 12 September 2007, under the
provisions of AFI 36-2603:
Mr. Michael J. Novel, Panel Chair
Mr. Richard K. Hartley, Member
Mr. Reginald P. Howard, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 31 Oct 06 w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Available Military Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPPPEP, dated 18 May 07.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 20 Jun 07.
MICHAEL J. NOVEL
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 | BC-2007-00053
When he was considered by the CY03A and two subsequent boards, his record included an Officer Performance Report (OPR) with inappropriate statements. Although applicant has provided a memo from his SR, dated 28 October 2004, which contained the statement “The OPR as originally written had the strong potential to unfairly prejudice a SR and promotion board in a negative fashion, and did not accurately reflect your true potential.”, this statement is generic in nature in that he refers 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...
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...
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2006-02488
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBERS: BC-2006-02488 INDEX CODE: 100.05, 131.01 XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 20 February 2008 _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His records be considered by Special Selection Board (SSB) by the Calendar Year 2003B (CY03B) (8 Dec 03) (P0403B) Major Central Selection Board (CSB) with a...
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-2006-03969
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...
In support of his request, applicant submits a personal statement, a copy of the contested OPR and reaccomplished OPR, a copy of the contested PRF and revised PRF, statements of support from his rating chain and Management Level Review (MLR) President, the Evaluation Reports Appeal Board (ERAB) decision and additional documents associated with the issues cited in his contentions (Exhibit A). _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE...
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 | CY2006 | BC-2006-01662
The following is a resume of the applicant’s EPR profile: PERIOD ENDING PROMOTION RECOMMENDATION 15 Oct 02 5 15 Oct 03* 4 15 Oct 04 5 15 Oct 05 5 *Contested reports The ERAB considered and denied the applicant’s request to remove the contested report on 18 October 2005. However, while current Air Force policy requires performance feedback for personnel, a direct correlation between information provided during feedback sessions and the assessments on evaluation reports does not necessarily...