RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2007-02146
INDEX CODE: 111.02
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 14 JANUARY 2009
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) rendered for the period 1 May 03
through 30 Apr 04 be removed from his records.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
The additional rater made several changes to the rater’s original ratings,
thereby reducing his overall rating without the consent of his rater. His
rater observed him directly on a daily basis and rated him accordingly.
The additional rater had very little time to observe him because they were
on different shifts. The additional rater never indicated to him or his
rater that his performance was not meeting expectations. 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 support of his request, applicant provides a personal statement, a
statement from his rater and additional rater and a copy of the contested
EPR.
The 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 staff
sergeant (E-5), with a date of rank and effective date of 1 Mar 02. The
following is a resume of his EPR profile for the last six rating cycles:
PERIOD ENDING PROMOTION RECOMMENDATION
30 Apr 02 5
30 Apr 03 3
30 Apr 04 4 (contested report)
30 Sep 04 5
PERIOD ENDING PROMOTION RECOMMENDATION
30 Sep 05 5
30 Sep 06 5
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
AFPC/DPPPEP recommends the contested report be reaccomplished. DPPPEP
advises that the additional rater did not have the authority to change the
rater’s information and believes the best course of action would be to
properly reaccomplish the report. This will allow the rater to prepare the
report the way he originally intended, if the additional rater disagrees,
he can do so using the procedures outlined in AFI 36-2406, Officer and
Enlisted Evaluation Systems. The AFPC/DPPPEP evaluation is at Exhibit C.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
The applicant states the contested report was discussed with the rater and
additional rater. Although the additional rater’s explanation seemed
logical, believable and probable, the additional rater’s comments were
unsupported and untrue. The applicant is not opposed to having the report
reaccomplished; however, he has concerns with the process. The applicant’s
complete response, with attachments, is at Exhibit E.
_________________________________________________________________
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 error or injustice. After reviewing the evidence of record
and the applicant’s submission, it is our opinion that the contested EPR
should be voided in its entirety. The documents provided by the applicant
clearly support his contention that the EPR was erroneously accomplished.
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. However, we believe it is conceivable
that a conflict may have existed between the applicant and the additional
rater and sufficient doubt has been established to question the accuracy
and fairness of the rating he would receive in a reaccomplished report.
Therefore, in view of the foregoing, we recommend the EPR be declared void
and removed from his records an 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 the AF Form 910, Enlisted
Performance Report, rendered for the period 1 May 2003 through 30 April
2004 be declared void and removed from his records.
_________________________________________________________________
The following members of the Board considered Docket Number BC-2007-02146
in Executive Session on 30 Oct 07 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:
Mr. Jay H. Jordan, Panel Chair
Mr. Garry G. Sauner, Member
Mr. Joseph D. Yount, Member
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 27 Jun 07, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant’s Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPPPEP, dated 21 Aug 07, w/atch.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 21 Sep 07.
Exhibit E. Letter, Applicant, dated 15 Oct 07, w/atchs.
JAY H. JORDAN
Panel Chair
AFBCMR BC-2007-02146
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 the AF Form 910, Enlisted
Performance Report, rendered for the period 1 May 2003 through 30 April
2004 be, and hereby is, declared void and removed from his records.
JOE G. LINEBERGER
Director
Air Force Review Boards Agency
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-2006-03969
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 | CY2005 | BC-2005-01081
DPPPEP states the applicant filed two appeals under the provisions of AFI 36-2401, Correcting Officer and Enlisted Reports. Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 6 May 05. CHRISTOPHER D. CAREY Panel Chair AFBCMR BC-2005-01081 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...
_________________________________________________________________ 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...
Noting the rater’s statement of support, DPPPA stated the rater indicates he decided to change his evaluation and overall rating based on “performance feedback that was not available during the time of her rating considerations and post discussions with one of her past supervisors.” The rater has not stated what he knows now that he did not know when the original EPR was prepared. Applicant’s complete response is at Exhibit...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-03461
Other than his own assertions, there is no indication in the record before us that that the rater did not have reasonable information available concerning the applicant’s performance during the contested rating period on which to base a reasonably accurate assessment. Additionally, we note that the rater on the contested report was in the applicant’s rating chain on the preceding report which, in our view, supports the position that the rater was familiar with the applicant and was aware of...
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 | CY2010 | BC-2010-00762
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2010-00762 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES ________________________________________________________________ THE APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) rendered for the period from 8 February 2008 through 1 October 2008 be changed to reflect the correct inclusive dates, remove duplicate bullet statements, and reflect the correct dates of supervision. She...
Both the commander and the indorser provide information on why although they originally supported the rating given the applicant, later determined that it was not a fair or objective evaluation. The complete evaluation is at Exhibit D. _______________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant responded to the Air Force evaluations. Exhibit F. Memorandum, Applicant, dated 15 Nov 01.