ADDENDUM TO
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2005-02368
INDEX CODE: 111.00
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His AF Form 911, Senior Enlisted Performance Report, (MSGT thru CMSGT)
(EPR) for the period of 17 Apr 2003 to 16 Apr 2004 be voided and he be
granted supplemental promotion consideration to the grade of Senior Master
Sergeant (SMSgt) for all appropriate cycles over the last three years.
_________________________________________________________________
RESUME OF CASE:
In his initial application, the applicant requested the subject EPR be
reviewed and reconsidered for Senior Rater Endorsement. He stated that he
far exceeded the requirements for the requested endorsement as he had
received his Community College of the Air Force (CCAF) degree, completed
his Course 5 before pinning on MSgt, excelled in all aspects of his daily
duties, and was very active within the base (assuming key leadership
positions). He was awarded the Meritorious Service Medal (MSM) upon
completing his two-year commitment, which by Air Force instructions is an
award given only to those members who far exceed normal AF standards.
On 9 Mar 06, the Board considered and denied his request after finding that
he had not provided the evidence necessary to substantiate the value of a
senior rater endorsement (Exhibit F). In addition, an Inspector General
(IG) complaint filed by the applicant revealed no wrongdoing, violation of
regulation, or violation of law.
For an accounting of the facts and circumstances surrounding the
applicant’s request and the rationale of the earlier decision by the Board,
see the Record of Proceedings at Exhibit F.
The applicant now contends reprisal was the only factor in his not
receiving Senior Rater Endorsement. He alleges that Chief W utilized his
position to influence a decision not to grant him senior rater endorsement
due to personal reasons and not on the merits of his performance. He had
no derogatory information in his personnel information file, or any
negative performance feedback to justify the decision.
In support of his latest request, he submits a letter from the predecessor
of his former Command Chief in support of his appeal, his personal
statement, the contested report, Performance/EPR Facts/Discrepancies
information sheet, his personal statement, excerpted page 52 of AFI 36-
2406, Officer and Enlisted Evaluations Systems), MSM award, last six (6)
EPRs, personnel information sheet, and AF IMT 102, Inspector General
Personal and Fraud, Waste & Abuse Complaint Registration.
His complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit G.
_________________________________________________________________
THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:
After a careful reconsideration of the applicant's request and his most
recent submission, we do not find it sufficiently compelling to warrant a
revision of our earlier determination in this case. We note the statement
provided by a previous command chief in support of the applicant’s appeal.
However, his statement appears to be based primarily on his personal
opinion that the applicant should have received a senior rater endorsement.
Notably absent is sufficient evidence to show that the commander’s action,
whose ultimate decision it was, was arbitrary and capricious or that he
exceeded his discretionary authority by not sending the applicant’s EPR
forward for endorsement. Although the applicant appears to view the
requested relief as righting an injustice perpetrated against him by his
command chief, we are obliged to note that the command chief was only in a
position to recommend an action, but the final decision was his
commander’s. Given the commander’s validation of that decision, we again
find no compelling basis to grant the requested relief.
________________________________________________________________
THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:
The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not demonstrate
the existence of probable 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 this application in Executive
Session on 10 July 2008, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:
Ms. Charlene M. Bradley, Panel Chair
Ms. Josephine L. Davis, Member
Mr. Joseph D. Yount, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered in AFBCMR Docket Number
BC-2005-02368:
Exhibit F. Record of Proceedings, dated 17 Mar 06, w/atchs.
Exhibit G. DD 149, dated 12 Mar 08, w/atchs.
CHARLENE M. BRADLEY
Panel Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-02368
DPPP states the applicant did not file an appeal under the provisions of AFI 36-2401, Correcting Officer and Enlisted Evaluation Reports. DPPP concludes the applicant did not provide any documentation to support his case. DPPP’s evaluation is at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: In his response dated 1 November 2005, the applicant provided his detailed refutations regarding the recommendations of the Air...
The EPR was designed to provide a rating for a specific period of time based on the performance noted during that period, not based on previous performance. One could also conclude, the “4” he received on the contested EPR may have motivated him to improve his duty performance for the subsequent reporting period. While it is true that EPRs are an important factor used in determining promotion potential under the Weighted Airmen’s Promotion System (WAPS), the contested report is not unjust,...
Her request for senior rater endorsement on the EPR should not be granted at this time. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant reviewed the Air Force evaluations and provides the wing commander’s concurrence of her request for senior rater indorsement. Sufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of probable error or injustice to warrant amending the MSM citation to include...
AF | BCMR | CY2008 | BC-2008-00167
This would have been done at the time he received and signed for his study material and test dates. The complete AFPC/DPSOE opinion is at Exhibit D. _______________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS: The applicant states that 99.9 percent of his daily duties and responsibilities were 2W0 related and it was difficult to work in an environment which he did not belong in and had no experience or formal training in. He states that the...
On 9 September 1997, the applicant wrote to the 39th Wing IG alleging he had experienced reprisal by his squadron commander for giving a protected statement to an IG investigator during a separate IG investigation on 15 and 19 July 1997. The applicant alleged the squadron commander withheld a senior rater endorsement to [the EPR in question]. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Chief, Inquiries/AFBCMR Section, HQ AFPC/DPPPWB, reviewed...
AF | BCMR | CY2008 | BC-2007-03115
________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: ARPC/DPB recommends denial as the applicant has not provided any evidence that the EPRs are in error and should be removed, and the fact that lack of feedback does not invalidate a report. AFI 36-2406, paragraph 2.3, states a rater’s failure to conduct a required or requested feedback session, or document a session on a Performance Feedback Worksheet, does not invalidate any subsequent performance report....
_________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Chief, Inquiries/AFBCMR Section, HQ AFPC/DPPPWB, advises that supplemental promotion consideration is normally not granted if the error or omission appeared on a member’s Data Verification Record (DVR) or in the Unit Personnel Record Group (UPRG) and the individual did not take the appropriate corrective or follow-up action before the original promotion board convened. The Board majority cannot...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-02524-2
In support of his appeal, applicant submitted a copy of his original PRF for the CY04A board; new endorsed PRF; a copy of the Management-Level Review letter of concurrence, dated 25 Apr 06; a copy of AFBCMR Recommendation, dated 9 Mar 06, and an extract from the AFI 36-2401, para A1.6., dated 20 Feb 04, Applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit G. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: HQ AFPC/DPPPE reviewed this...
AF | BCMR | CY1998 | BC-1998-01069
___________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Enlisted Promotion & Military Testing Branch, AFPC/DPPPWB, provided comments addressing supplemental promotion consideration. The complete evaluation is at Exhibit D. ___________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Applicant provided a supporting statement from his commander, who is also the indorser on the proposed reaccomplished...
___________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Enlisted Promotion & Military Testing Branch, AFPC/DPPPWB, provided comments addressing supplemental promotion consideration. The complete evaluation is at Exhibit D. ___________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Applicant provided a supporting statement from his commander, who is also the indorser on the proposed reaccomplished...