RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2007-01877
INDEX CODE:
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
The Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) he received for the period 2
January 2006 through 1 January 2007, be completely removed from his
record.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
Between September 2006 and January 2007 of the rating period, his
rating official had only 107 days of supervision and not the 276 days
as stated on his EPR. He had four different supervisors during the
rating period including a captain who had been assigned as his
supervisor in June 2006 but was deployed from 11 May 2006 to 17
September 2006. He contends he never received a performance feedback
and that Air Force Instruction (AFI) 36-2406, Officer and Enlisted
Evaluation Systems, required supervisors to have a minimum of 120 days
of direct supervision before an EPR can be generated.
In support of his appeal, the applicant has provided email
communications and a letter of support.
Applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
Applicant is currently serving in the Regular Air Force in the grade
of technical sergeant. He received an EPR for the period 2 January
2006 through 1 January 2007. As he did not file an appeal under the
provisions of AFI 36-2401, Correcting Officer and Enlisted Evaluation
Reports, his EPR was forwarded to the Evaluation Reports Appeals Board
(ERAB). The ERAB noted there were enough days of supervision to
render a report however, the number of days of supervision should be
changed to 120 days in accordance with AFI 36-2406. Table 3.2, Note 6
of AFI 36-2406, indicates that all periods of 30 or more consecutive
calendar days during which the ratee did not perform normal duties
under the rater’s supervision because either the ratee or rater was
away for temporary duty (TDY), those days should be deducted from the
total number days of supervision. Further, AFI 36-2401 states that
applications based on the fact that the ratee and rater were
geographically separated is not a valid argument to remove a report.
Many Air Force members have to perform duties without the benefit of
direct daily supervision. The ERAB administratively corrected his
report to show 120 days of supervision.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
AFPC/DPSID recommends denial. DPSID contends while the applicant did
not provide the supporting documentation required in AFI 36-2401,
DPSID verified from the Military Personnel Data System (MilPDS) that
the supervision in question actually began on 1 April 2006, his rater
was actually TDY from 23 April 2006 through 25 September 2006, and
that the days of supervision on the questioned report should be
changed to 120 days. DPSID notes the ERAB’s administrative correction
of his report to reflect 120 days of supervision. In regards to his
contention he did not receive a feedback session with his supervisor,
DPSID refers to AFI-2406, paragraph 2.6 wherein it is stated “While
documented feedback sessions are required by this Instruction, they do
not replace the informal day-to-day feedback. A rater’s failure to
conduct a required or requested feedback session, or document the
session on a Performance Feedback Worksheet will not, in itself,
invalidate any subsequent performance reports.”
DPSID’s complete evaluation, with attachment, is at Exhibit C.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on
12 October 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 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. 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-
2007-01877 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 7 May 2007, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPSIDEP, dated 21 September 2007,
w/atchs.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 12 October 2007.
THOMAS S. MARKIEWICZ
Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2010 | BC-2010-02279
In accordance with AFI-36-2406, Officer and Enlisted Evaluation Systems, Table 3.7, Note 6, the close-out date for EPRs is one year from the previous EPR close-out date or when 120 calendar days of supervision have passed. From the time the new rater was assigned until the EPR close-out on 2 Mar 10 there were 124 days of supervision, making the evaluation an accurate report in accordance with AFI 36-2406. We took notice of the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of the...
AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2011-04279
DPSID states the applicant did not file an appeal through the Evaluation Reports Appeal Board’s (ERAB) under the provisions of AFI 36-240l, Correcting Officer and Enlisted Evaluation Reports. DPSID states, that in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, the rater did follow all applicable policies and procedures in the preparation and completion of the contested evaluation. It appears the report was accomplished in direct accordance with applicable Air 4 Force instructions.
AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-04746
The first time the contested report was used in the promotion process was cycle 11E6. The complete AFPC/DPSID evaluation is at Exhibit D. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: On 23 Mar 2012, copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant for review and comment within 30 days. ________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: The pertinent military records...
AF | BCMR | CY2009 | BC-2008-03399
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2008-03399 INDEX CODE: 111.02 XXXXXXX COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ___________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) closing 8 Sep 06 be voided and removed from his record. HQ AFPC/DPPPEP’s complete evaluation is at Exhibit...
AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 02192
A raters failure to conduct a required or requested feedback session, or document the session on a PFW, will not, of itself, invalidate any subsequent performance report or (for officers) PRF. Furthermore, IAW AFI 36-2401, paragraph Al.5.8, it states that Only members in the rating chain can confirm if counseling was provided. While current Air Force policy requires performance feedback for personnel, a direct correlation between information provided during feedback sessions and the...
AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-02734
The action was not a change of rater, but removal of rater and the feedback date as recorded was valid for use in the contested EPR. The ERAB administratively corrected the EPR by adding the rater was removed from the rating chain effective 18 November 2010. The applicant states the number of supervision days as reflected (365) is inaccurate as his new rater did not assume rating duties until 18 November 2010. He does not provide any supporting evidence to support that any unreliable...
AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-04618
The applicant has not provided any evidence within her appeal that this report did in fact not make it into her promotion selection record in time for the promotion evaluation board. The complete DPSOE evaluation is at Exhibit D. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on 1 March 2012 for review and comment within 30 days (Exhibit E). We took notice of...
AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-02070
DPSID states the applicant did file an appeal through the Evaluation Report Appeals Board (ERAB) under the provisions of Air Force Instruction (AFI) 36-2401, Correcting Officer and Enlisted Evaluation Reports; however, the ERAB was not convinced the contested report was inaccurate or unjust. In the applicants case, the feedback date is clearly annotated on the form, and the applicant has not proved, through his submitted evidence that the feedback date as recorded did not in fact take...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC-2013-01902
b. AFPC/DPSIDs advisory opinion states The applicant believes that after subtraction of his TDY to the NCO Academy and the time he was loaned out to another section, the rater on the contested evaluation did not obtain the minimum required supervision of 120 days. In his original application, there is substantial evidence that shows the Chief did not have enough days of supervision to close out a report on him. The Chief sent an email to him on 21 Sep 09 stating he was assigned as his...
AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-02557
_________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: His rater did not provide him with a mid-term feedback and there is evidence to support that a personality conflict existed between him and his rater. He asked for feedback and notified his chain-of-command that he was not provided feedback. In the absence of any evidence of unfair treatment or injustice, DPSID finds that the ratings were given fairly and IAW all Air Force policies and procedures.