RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2007-02545
INDEX CODE: 110.02
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His enlisted performance report (EPR) with a close-out date of 10 Nov 04
be upgraded or removed from his records.
Examiner’s Note: The applicant does not have an EPR with a close-out date
of 10 Nov 04. The EPR for this period was 13 Nov 03 to 12 Nov 04.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
There was an insufficient record of feedback for the entire rating period.
There was coercion by his superiors and there was a false/forged Letter of
Counseling (LOC) in his records.
His superior admitted to forging the LOC to justify changing his EPR from a
“5” rating to a “4” rating.
In support of his request, the applicant provided statements in his own
behalf, a chronological record of events, copies of his EPRs, letters of
support, a copy of his AF IMT 174, Record of Individual Counseling, dated
29 Oct 04, a memorandum for record, dated 10 Aug 04, a Kessler Air Force
Base Form 117, Enlisted Performance Report Form, a personnel change action
worksheet, copies of e-mails, and an AF IMT 931, Performance Feedback
Worksheet.
The 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.
Records indicate the applicant was given a LOC in Oct 04 without his
knowledge. The LOC was later investigated and determined to be forged.
The applicant did not file an appeal through the Evaluation Reports Appeal
Board (ERAB) under the provisions of AFI 36-2401, Correcting Officer and
Enlisted Performance Reports; however it was forwarded to the ERAB and they
denied relief because they were not convinced the report was inaccurate
based on the evidence provided.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
AFPC/DPSIDEP recommends denial. The applicant did not provide any evidence
that supports his evaluators were coerced into downgrading his EPR.
DPSIDEP states they requested he provide statements from the evaluators.
The applicant replied back stating the commander retired and the evaluators
denied any knowledge of the situation. DPSIDEP states that evidence shows
the applicant received some form of feedback including at least two written
feedbacks; one on 4 May 04 and the other on 4 Nov 04.
DPSIDEP states that Air Force policy is that an evaluation report is
accurate as written when it becomes a matter of record. To effectively
challenge an EPR, it is necessary to hear from all the members of the
rating chain—not only for support, but also for clarification/explanation.
The applicant failed to provide any information/support from the rating
chain on the contested EPR. Evidence shows that there were some issues,
including the LOR, which would more than support a less than perfect
rating.
The complete AFPC/DPSIDEP opinion is at Exhibit C.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 18 Apr
08 for review and comment within 30 days (Exhibit D). As of this date,
this office has not received a 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 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 their 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 Docket Number BC-2007-02545
Executive Session on 29 May 2008 provisions of AFI 36-2603:
Mr. Wayne R. Gracie, Panel Chair
Mr. Vance E. Lineberger, Member
Mr. Garry G. Sauner, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, w/atchs, dated 21 Nov 06.
Exhibit B. Enlisted Performance Reports.
Exhibit C. Memorandum, AFPC/DPSIDEP, dated 11 Apr 08
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 18 Apr 08.
WAYNE R. GRACIE
Panel Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2008 | BC-2008-00581
AFPC/DPSIDEP's complete evaluation is at Exhibit B. After reviewing all of the evidence provided, we are not persuaded that the contested report is an inaccurate depiction of the applicant's performance for the period in question. Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, the Board finds no compelling basis to recommend that the contested report be corrected.
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.
AF | BCMR | CY2008 | BC-2007-04032
In support of his request, the applicant provided statements in his own behalf and copies of three EPRs ending 20 Jan 06, 29 Apr 05, and 15 Dec 06, respectively. However, after a thorough review, and since some doubt exists, DPSIDEP recommends the AFBCMR direct that for the EPR ending 20 Jan 06, Section VI, Line 6, remove the statement: “not ready for promotion.” The complete AFPC/DPSIDEP opinion is at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S...
AF | BCMR | CY2009 | BC-2008-02144
The complete DPSIDEP 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 25 July 2008 for review and comment within 30 days. In this case, the rater provided a mid-term feedback; and although it was given to the ratee three months prior to the closeout date of the contested report, we agree with the determination of AFPC/DPSIDEP that...
AF | BCMR | CY2009 | BC-2009-00137
When he questioned his supervisor about his performance rating, he was told he would receive a five rating. The complete DPSIDEP 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 6 Mar 09 for review and comment within 30 days. In addition, we note the feedback worksheet provided by the applicant supports the rating he received.
AF | BCMR | CY2009 | BC-2009-00541
If there was a personality conflict between the applicant and the rater which was of such magnitude the rater could not be objective, the additional rater, or even the first sergeant and commander would have been aware of the situation and would have made any necessary adjustments to the applicants EPR; or at least supported the applicants appeal request. However, the applicant did not provide any statements from other applicable evaluators. Evaluators must confirm they did not provide...
AF | BCMR | CY2010 | BC-2009-02670
While Air Force policy requires performance feedback for personnel, a direct correlation between the information provided during a feedback session, and the assessment on evaluation reports does not necessarily exist. As of this date, this office has received no response (Exhibit C). 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...
AF | BCMR | CY2010 | BC-2009-02480
DPSIDEP states the Air Force does not require the designated rater to be the ratee’s immediate supervisor. DPSIDEP notes the statement provided by the applicant was written by a member of the Air National Guard not assigned to his squadron. Exhibit C. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 26 Feb 10.
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...
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...