RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-20O7-01900
INDEX CODE: 111.00
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
The ratings reflected on Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) rendered for the
period of 23 Jul 03 through 22 Jul 05 be corrected or voided.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
The report does not reflect his efforts or accomplishments during the
rating period. He received no verbal or written feedbacks to support the
ratings given on his EPR. He was noted for excellence of his work by
superiors during this rating period. The accomplishments listed on his EPR
do not match the Air Force Commendation Medal (AFCM) Justification (AF IM
642) write-up. His efforts are highly noted on one and mediocre on the
other for the same efforts and job.
In support of the application, the applicant submits his EPR, an AF IMT
642, Air Force Commendation Medal Justification, a memorandum dated 10 Mar
07, and an AF IMT 948, Application for Correction/Removal of Evaluation
Reports.
The applicant's complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
Information extracted from the Military Personnel Data System (MilPDS)
indicates the applicant is a Reservist currently serving as a Fire Fighter
in the grade of master sergeant, effective and with a date of rank of 1 Nov
01.
His last 5 ratings are, 4, 4, 4, 4 and 3, respectively.
The applicant previously filed an appeal through the Evaluation Reports
Appeal Board (ERAB) and was denied.
The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application, extracted from
the applicant’s military records, are contained in the letter prepared by
the appropriate office of the Air Force at Exhibit C.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
HQ ARPC/DPB recommends denial. DPB notes that although the applicant
states he did not receive feedback, his EPR shows he received feedback on
22 Jul 04. DPB states the EPR in question is not a referral in nature, nor
does it reflect negative attributes. None of the performance blocks
contained in Section III are marked to the far left (indicating poor
performance/not meeting expectations); however, all indicators are marked
that the applicant is meeting expectations. In addition, the EPR is
actually marked ready for promotion (Section IV) by both the rater and
additional rater.
DPB notes the actual citation for the AFCM covers the period 1999 through
2005. The EPR in question covers 2003 through 2005 --only two of the six
years covered in the medal. The awarding of the medal does not override
the performance reported in the EPR. An applicant requesting correction of
a performance report must provide strong evidence to overcome the reports
presumed validity.
DPB concludes the applicant has not provided strong evidence that the EPR
is in error.
The complete DPB evaluation is at Exhibit C.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 7 Dec
07 for review and comment within 30 days. As of this date, this office has
received no response (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. Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the
existence of error or injustice. We carefully considered the applicant’s
complete submission in judging the merits of the case; however, we are not
persuaded that the contested report should be changed or removed from his
records. Other than his own assertions, the applicant has not provided
sufficient evidence to substantiate the contested report was improperly
rendered. Therefore, in the absence of compelling evidence to the
contrary, we find no basis to grant 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 BC-2007-01900 in
Executive Session on 20 Feb 08, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:
Mr. Michael K. Gallogly, Panel Chair
Mr. Steven A. Cantrell, Member
Mr. Kurt R. LaFrance, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 10 Jun 07, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Letter, HQ ARPC/DPB, dated 6 Dec 07.
Exhibit C. Letter, SAF/MRBC, dated 7 Dec 07.
MICHAEL K. GALLOGLY
Panel Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2008 | BC-2007-01327
The EPR is erroneous in that it reflects an incorrect reporting period due to the fact that her last UTA with the 302nd ASTS was performed on 10 August 2003 and she did not participate with this unit for pay/points after this date, and reflects a feedback session date of 2 June 2003 that did not occur and was fabricated for reasons unknown to her. The applicant’s contentions are noted; however, the available evidence indicates that although she contends she did not participate with the...
The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating to APPLICANT be corrected to show that the Enlisted Performance Report, AF Form 910, rendered for the period 24 July 1997 through 11 December 1998, be declared void and removed from her records. ROSCOE HINTON JR. Panel Chair AFBCMR 02-01041 MEMORANDUM...
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....
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2006-03817
The purpose of the feedback session is to give the ratee direction and to define performance expectations for the rating period in question. The complete evaluation is at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant states the performance feedback work sheet is used to tell a ratee what is expected regarding duty performance and how well expectations are being met. After reviewing the documentation...
AF | BCMR | CY2010 | BC-2010-01282
The applicant did not provide any evidence to support his contention of retaliation. The DPSIDEP complete evaluation is at Exhibit B. AFPC/DPSOE does not provide a recommendation. The DPSOE complete evaluation is at Exhibit C. ___________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant responded by withdrawing his request to be awarded the AFCM.
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-02202
On 20 July 2005, ARPC/DPBPP, requested the applicant provide a copy of the additional rater’s e-mail, dated 10 July 2003, which the applicant’s cites as an attachment in her Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records application package. We note the comments provided by the Air Force office of primary responsibility that although Air Force policy does require performance feedback for personnel, it does not replace day-to-day feedback; and, failure to conduct a required or requested...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-01623
In support of his appeal, applicant submitted a copy of his EPR closing 8 Jun 02; a computer printout (Ratee’s Initial/Follow-up Performance Feedback Notification), dated 11 Jun 01; a Report on Individual Personnel (RIP), dated 14 Feb 02; a Records Review Rip, dated 24 Jul 02; a copy of a CRO/Duty Title Worksheet; copies of his AF Forms 932, Performance Feedback Worksheet (MSgt thru CMSgt), dated 2 Jan 02 and 19 Feb 02, respectively, and a copy of emails from the Base IMA Administrator...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-01693
For airmen who meet eligibility requirements, the immediate supervisor recommends promotion on AF Form 224, Recommendation and Authorization for Promotion of Airman as Reserve of the Air Force. According to the 7 Apr 04 report, MSgt C was the rater and Chief A was the additional rater. A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: He should have received an initial and...
AF | BCMR | CY2008 | BC-2007-03091
Section III, Evaluation of Performance, contains ratings marked one block to the left by his rater, the squadron commander, and the additional rater, the group commander, for Duty performance and Managerial Skills. If the applicant had provided some supporting documentation that the feedback date was in error, the ERAB would have corrected the report to reflect the accurate date and/or applicable statement versus voiding the report. The applicant provided no evidence to support his claim.
Applicant contends his supervisor rendered the contested 3 March 1994 report in reprisal against him and requests the Board remove the report from his record. While the applicant has provided a statement from his former supervisor who states that a recommendation package was submitted, we are not persuaded that his former supervisor had the authority to submit an award recommendation or that the applicant was eligible for an award at the time his supervisor went PCS. If supplemental...