RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2007-00685
INDEX CODE: 111.02
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: YES
MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 5 SEPTEMBER 2008
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His enlisted performance report (EPR) for the period 14 May 05 to 28 Feb 06
be corrected to reflect a close out date of 3 Oct 05.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
On 3 Oct 05, he was moved from 60 MDSS to 60 MSGS. Neither his supervisor
while assigned to 60 MDSS nor his supervisor while assigned to 60 MSGS
submitted a permanent change of assignment (PCA) request until 2 Mar 06,
approximately 6 months after the fact. The PCA should have been
accomplished shortly after 3 Oct 05 and a change of reporting official
(CRO) EPR should have been written at that time.
He is not contesting the content or rating of the EPR, but would like for
his EPR to accurately reflect his duty assignments and performance. He
would like for his EPR to reflect the date his assignment actually changed.
In support of his request, applicant provided a clarification memorandum,
copy of his EPR, a statement from his NCOIC, 60 MSGS, a change of duty
worksheet, job qualification worksheets, and his On-the-Job Training record
when he joined the Surgical Flight.
The 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
staff sergeant (SSgt) and is currently assigned to Nellis AFB.
On 28 Feb 06, the applicant received notification of a referral EPR for the
period 14 May 05 through 28 Feb 06. The applicant acknowledged receipt and
submitted a written rebuttal on 6 Mar 06.
Applicant’s EPR profile follows:
PERIOD ENDING OVERALL PROMOTION EVALUATION
*28 Feb 06 4
13 May 05 5
13 Jun 04 5
13 Jun 03 5
13 Jun 02 5
13 Jun 01 5
13 Jun 00 4
* Contested Report
The applicant did not appeal the contested report under the provisions of
AFI 36-2401, Correcting Officer and Enlisted Evaluations Reports.
_________________________________________________________________
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. Inaccurate designations and failures to change raters can
occur when personnel are reassigned, work centers reorganized, functional
areas or units realigned, etc. To prove his case, the applicant must
provide statements from both the individuals who signed the report and from
the individuals who believe they should have written the report. They
should cite the from and thru dates of their supervision and explain what
happened. The “erroneous” evaluator must clearly explain why he or she
wrote and signed the report when they were not the rater. Likewise the
“correct” evaluator must explain why he or she did not write the report
even though they were supposed to.” The member failed to provide
sufficient documentation from all evaluators, both correct and erroneous,
substantiating his claim.
Additionally, based on documentation submitted a CRO report was not
required for the period 14 May 05 – 03 Oct 05. It could be argued 30 Jan
06 should be the closeout date of the contested report since the applicant
has failed to provide substantial evidence to prove the CRO was effective
30 Jan 06. Without official substantiate evidence from the evaluators who
endorsed the report, they can only conclude the report is accurate as
written.
While Air Force policy does charge a rater to get meaningful information
from the ratee and as many sources as possible, it is the rater’s ultimate
responsibility to determine which accomplishments are included on the EPR
and whether or not it is necessary for him or her to gather additional
information from other sources in order to render an accurate assessment of
the individual.
The DPPPEP complete evaluation is at Exhibit B.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
Applicant submitted a statement from his rater during the period of the EPR
he would like changed. He agrees that trainers are not required to be in
the trainee’s rating chain; nevertheless, the point he is trying to display
is his presence and membership of the 60 MSGS during the rating period. He
is not seeking a change on the assessment of his performance during the
rating period of the EPR; he is only requesting a change of the rating
period.
Applicant’s complete submission is at 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. Sufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the
existence of an error or injustice warranting corrective action. The
applicant requests that the period of report on his 28 February 2006
Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) be changed to reflect the date that his
assignment actually changed. After careful consideration of the
applicant’s complete submission, including the supporting statements
provided by the members of his rating chain stating that the member was
reassigned in October 2005, and that a change of reporting official (CRO)
was not accomplished, we believe it would be appropriate for us to
recommend granting the requested relief. Accordingly, we recommend that
the applicant’s records be corrected as indicated below.
_______________________________________________________________
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT:
The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating
to APPLICANT, be corrected to show that:
a. The Enlisted Performance Report (EPR), AF IMT 910, rendered for
the period 14 May 2005 through 28 February 2006, be amended in Block 7,
“Period of Report,” to reflect 14 May 2005 through 3 October 2005 and Block
8, “No. Days Supervision,” be adjusted as required.
b. The period of supervision on any performance reports rendered
subsequent to the above EPR be adjusted as required.
_________________________________________________________________
The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2007-
00685 in Executive Session on 15 May 2007, under the provisions of AFI 36-
2603:
Mr. Michael V. Barbino, Panel Chair
Mr. Don H. Kendrick, Member
Mr. John B. Hennessey, Member
All members voted to correct the records, as recommended. The following
documentary evidence pertaining to Docket Number BC-2007-00685 was
considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 25 Feb 07, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Letter, AFPC/DPPPEP, dated 2 Apr 07.
Exhibit C. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 6 Apr 07.
Exhibit D. Letter, Applicant, dated 11 May 07, w/atch.
MICHEAL V. BARBINO
Panel Chair
AFBCMR BC-2007-00685
MEMORANDUM FOR THE CHIEF OF STAFF
Having received and considered the recommendation of the Air Force
Board for Correction of Military Records and under the authority of Section
1552, Title 10, United States Code (70A Stat 116), it is directed that:
The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force
relating to [APPLICANT], be corrected to show that:
a. The Enlisted Performance Report (EPR), AF IMT 910, rendered
for the period 14 May 2005 through 28 February 2006, be amended in
Block 7, “Period of Report,” to reflect 14 May 2005 through 3
October 2005 and Block 8, “No. Days Supervision,” be adjusted as required.
b. The period of supervision on any performance reports
rendered subsequent to the above EPR be adjusted as required.
JOE G. LINEBERGER
Director
Air Force Review Boards Agency
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 | CY2006 | BC-2006-02414
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2006-02414 INDEX CODE: 111.02 XXXXXXX COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 15 FEB 2008 ___________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His enlisted performance report closing 13 Sep 05 be voided. ___________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: HQ AFPC/DPPPEP reviewed...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2004-01510-3
__________________________________________________________________ ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Pursuant to the Board’s request, AFPC/DPPPE reevaluated the applicant’s case based on the newly submitted evidence. Counsel states that there is no way the 120 day requirement to do a report was not met and states that the contested OPR should be expunged and the applicant considered for promotion by SSB. Therefore, the Board majority recommends the applicant’s records be corrected as...
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-2006-03204
Applicant states the evaluation of performance markings do not match up with the rater/additional rater's comments and promotion recommendation. 3.8.5.2 states do not suspense or require raters to submit signed/completed reports any earlier than five duty days after the close-out date. The applicant contends that he did not receive feedback and that neither the rater, nor the additional rater was his rater’s rater.
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 | 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 | CY2007 | BC-2006-03111
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. 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 complete DPPPEP evaluation is at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: A copy of...
_________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: HQ AFPC/DPPPWB addressed the supplemental promotion consideration issue should the applicant’s request be approved. DPPPWB stated that the first time the contested report was considered in the promotion process was Cycle 97E5 to staff sergeant (E-5), promotions effective Sep 97 - Aug 98. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Having...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-00772
In support of his request, the applicant submits a copy of the Evaluation Reports Appeal Board (ERAB) denial letter dated 10 January 2003, a copy of the contested EPR, a copy of the referral EPR notification, a copy of supporting statements from his raters and additional rater, a copy of his TDY voucher, and his letter concerning his former commander. The applicant submitted an appeal to the Evaluation Reports Appeal Board (ERAB) in December 2002 requesting his EPR for the period 12 May...