RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2007-01654
INDEX CODE: 111.05
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
The Enlisted Performance Report rendered for the period 2 September 2006
through 22 February 2007 be declared void and removed from his record.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
He was treated unfairly during the contested time period by his rater.
There were AFI and DoD regulation violations and he believes his EPR
suffered as a result.
In support of his request, the applicant provided documentation extracted
from his military personnel records.
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 of
staff sergeant having assumed that grade effective and with a date of rank
of 1 April 2003.
The applicant did not appeal the contested report under the provisions of
AFI 36-2401; however, it was forwarded to the Evaluation Reports Appeal
Board (ERAB) for review and denial was recommended because the his request
was based on personal opinions and unsupported allegations.
His EPR profile since 2002 reflects the following:
PERIOD ENDING EVALUATION OF POTENTIAL
19 Oct 02 4
19 Oct 03 5
19 Oct 04 5
19 Oct 05 5
01 Sep 06 5
* 22 Feb 07 4
* Contested report.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
AFPC/DPPPEP recommends denial. DPPPEP states an evaluation report is
considered to represent the rating chain’s best judgment at the time it is
rendered. Once a report is accepted for file, only strong evidence to the
contrary warrants removal of the report from the applicant’s record. The
burden of proof is on the applicant and he failed to provide substantiating
evidence that warrants voiding his EPR.
DPPPEP’s complete evaluation is at Exhibit C.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
On 13 July 2007, the evaluation was forwarded to the applicant for review
and comment within 30 days (Exhibit D). 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 an error or injustice. After reviewing the evidence provided,
we are not persuaded that the contested report is erroneous or unjust. In
the rating process, each evaluator is required to assess a ratee’s
performance, honestly and to the best of their ability. In judging the
merits of this case, we took note of the applicant’s contentions; however,
other than his own assertion, we have seen no evidence by the applicant
which would lead us to believe the rater abused his discretionary
authority, that the rating was based on inappropriate considerations, or
that the report was technically flawed. Therefore, in the absence of
evidence to the contrary, we find no compelling basis to recommend granting
the relief sought.
_________________________________________________________________
THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:
The applicant be notified the evidence presented did not demonstrate the
existence of an error or injustice; the application was denied without a
personal appearance; and 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-
01654 in Executive Session on 27 November 2007, under the provisions of AFI
36-2603:
Mr. Thomas S. Markiewicz, Chair
Ms. Debra K. Walker, Member
Mr. Kurt R. LaFrance, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 16 May 2007, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPPPEP, dated 6 July 2007.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 13 July 2007.
Exhibit E. IG Complaint Analysis – Withdrawn.
THOMAS S. MARKIEWICZ
Chair
DPPPEP stated that, during the contested reporting period, the applicant received a Letter of Counseling (LOC), dated 30 Dec 99, and a Letter of Reprimand (LOR), dated 22 Jun 00, for “isolated incidents.” DPPPEP referenced the decision of the Evaluation Reports Appeal Board (ERAB), which states that “Evaluators are obligated to consider incidences, their frequency, and periods of substandard performance.” DPPPEP stated that the additional rater’s comments in Section VI of the...
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2006-02684
In support of his request, the applicant submits copies of two statements from orderly room personnel; EPRs closing 31 December 2004 and 19 April 2004; Performance Feedback Worksheet, dated 1 July 2004; Inspector General (IG) Personal and Fraud, Waste & Abuse Complaint; IG Complaint Response; Application for Correction/Removal of Evaluation Reports; Record Transmittal; and Evaluation Reports Appeal Board (ERAB) Disapproval. The applicant received a rating of a “4” on his EPR for the rating...
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2006-01530
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2006-01530 INDEX CODE: 111.02 JAMES F. BANKS COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 20 November 2007 _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) rendered for the period 12 July 2002 through 4 May 2003 be voided and removed from his records. THOMAS S. MARKIEWICZ Chair AIR...
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2007-02146
The additional rater took advantage of the opportunity to change the rater’s ratings while the rater was not present to contest his actions. In addition, the office of primary responsibility has also indicated that the contested report was erroneous and recommends the best course of action would be to reaccomplish the report. Exhibit E. Letter, Applicant, dated 15 Oct 07, w/atchs.
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-00448
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 exist. Evaluators must confirm they did not provide counseling or feedback, and that this directly resulted in an unfair evaluation. AFPC/DPPPEP's complete evaluation is at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR...
On 10 Apr 01, the applicant’s squadron commander notified him that he was recommending his discharge from the Air Force for a mental disorder. Based on documentation in the applicant’s file and the narrative reason for his separation, “Personality Disorder” they recommend that the applicant’s RE code be changed to 2C, “Involuntarily separated with an honorable discharge; or entry level separation without characterization of service.” The complete evaluation is at Exhibit...
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 01-02492 INDEX CODE: 111.02 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: The Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) rendered for the period 3 Mar 99 through 14 Oct 99 be declared void and removed from his records and restoration of his promotion to technical sergeant from the 99E6 promotion cycle, including back...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-02322
The first time the contested report will be considered in the promotion process is cycle 07E7 to master sergeant. The complete evaluation is at Exhibit D. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on 22 Sep 06, for review and comment within 30 days. After reviewing the documentation provided by the applicant and the evidence of record, the Board finds no...
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...
_________________________________________________________________ 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...