Search Decisions

Decision Text

AF | BCMR | CY2008 | BC-2007-02792
Original file (BC-2007-02792.DOC) Auto-classification: Denied


                       RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2007-02792
            INDEX CODE:  111.02

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO


_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His Referral Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) rendered for the period
1 Mar 06 through 28 Feb 07 be  declared  void  and  removed  from  his
records.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

Too much emphasis was placed on an isolated incident.

There was a lack of observation and supervision.

He only worked in the squadron for three and a half months.

There was no evidence to support the referral report and  the  overall
rating of “3.”

The EPR did not accurately  reflect  his  accomplishments  during  the
reporting period.

He received the referral report as a result of a Letter  of  Reprimand
(LOR).

In support of  his  appeal,  the  applicant  provided  copies  of  the
contested report, electronic mail (e-mail), a Physical Profile  Serial
Report,  supportive  statements,  the  LOR,  and  an  AF   IMT   1058,
Unfavorable Information File (UIF) Action.

Applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Information extracted from the Personnel Data System  (PDS)  indicates
the applicant is currently serving on active  duty  in  the  grade  of
staff sergeant, with a date of rank  (DOR)  of  1 May 06.   His  Total
Active Federal Military Service Date (TAFMSD) is 13 Nov 01.

Applicant’s EPR profile follows:

      PERIOD ENDING    EVALUATION

      13 Jul 03        5
      28 Feb 05        5
      28 Feb 06        4
  *   28 Feb 07        3 (Referral)

* Contested Report.

On 11 Dec 06, the applicant was given an LOR for  being  negligent  in
the performance of his duties  as  a  noncommissioned  officer  (NCO).
Specifically, on 16 Oct 06, he was given a profile that stated he  was
not world-wide deployable.  He showed this profile to the director  of
operations  (DO)  and  the  group  unit  deployment   manager   (UDM).
Unfortunately, the profile was not legal because all of  the  required
signatures were not on  it.   Three  days  later,  he  picked  up  his
legitimate profile stating he was world-wide deployable but did not go
out of his way to reveal it.  He placed it on the squadron UDM’s  desk
but took no other action.  That same day, someone else was  picked  to
take his spot on a deployment.  He became  aware  of  that  and  still
failed to point out he was deployable.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPSIDEP recommends denial noting the applicant  filed  an  appeal
through the Evaluation Reports Appeals  Board  (ERAB).   However,  the
ERAB found no procedural errors in the contested report and denied the
appeal.  AFPC/DPSIDEP indicates they  have  reviewed  the  applicant’s
request for removal of the contested EPR and  found  no  evidence  the
report was in error or unjust.

A complete copy of the AFPC/DPSIDEP evaluation is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Applicant again asserts the reasons he believes the contested  EPR  is
unjust, and points out the inconsistency he believes  existed  between
the  e-mail  from  his  commander  and  the  LOR  he   received.    He
respectfully asks that the Board remove the report from his records.

Applicant’s complete response 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.  Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented  to  demonstrate
the existence of error or injustice warranting any corrective  action.
The evidence of record indicates the applicant was given  an  LOR  for
being negligent in the performance of his duties as an NCO, which  was
the basis for the referral EPR.  We are not persuaded by the  evidence
presented that the information used as the  reason  for  the  LOR  was
erroneous, there was an  abuse  of  discretionary  authority,  or  the
contested report  was  an  inaccurate  depiction  of  the  applicant’s
performance at the time it was rendered.  In view of the above, and in
the absence of  sufficient  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-
2007-02792 in Executive Session on 12 Feb 08, under the provisions  of
AFI 36-2603:

      Ms. Charlene M. Bradley, Panel Chair
      Ms. Karen A. Holloman, Member
      Mr. Wallace F. Beard, Jr., Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 24 Aug 07, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Available Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPSIDEP, dated 11 Dec 07.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 21 Dec 07.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, applicant, dated 18 Jan 08.




                                   CHARLENE M. BRADLEY
                                   Panel Chair

Similar Decisions

  • AF | BCMR | CY2009 | BC-2008-02016

    Original file (BC-2008-02016.DOC) Auto-classification: Denied

    In support of his request, applicant provided a chronological record of events, copies of his LOR and EPR. The complete DPSOE evaluation is at Exhibit C. _______________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant’s counsel responded stating the issues raised on his DD Form 149 reflect the facts needed for equitable review. _______________________________________________________________ RECOMMENDATION OF THE BOARD: The applicant...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2009 | BC-2008-01852

    Original file (BC-2008-01852.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    The report was marked down in one area, “How well does ratee comply with standards?” Her EPR profile reflects the following: PERIOD ENDING EVALUATION OF POTENTIAL 15 Jan 03 5 15 Jan 04 5 Her EPR profile continues: PERIOD ENDING EVALUATION OF POTENTIAL 15 Jan 05 5 16 Jul 05 5 16 Jul 06 5 **16 Jul 07 4 ** Contested report _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSIDEP recommends denial and states in part, that since the applicant did not...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2010 | BC-2010-00919

    Original file (BC-2010-00919.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    DPSIDEP states the applicant filed an appeal through the Evaluation Reports Appeal Board (ERAB) under the provisions of Air Force Instruction 36-2401, Correcting Officer and Enlisted Evaluation Reports. Should the Board grant the applicant’s request to remove the referral report, it could direct the promotion to staff sergeant be reinstated with a date of rank and effective date of 1 December 2009. We took notice of the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of the case;...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2010 | BC-2010-01284

    Original file (BC-2010-01284.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    In support of his appeal, the applicant provides copies of a fax transmission, memorandums for record (MFRs), a Letter of Reprimand (LOR), response to the LOR, a referral EPR with cover memorandum, his response to the referral EPR, character references, and a Letter of Evaluation. DPSIDEP states the applicant filed several appeals through the Evaluation Reports Appeal Board (ERAB) under the provisions of Air Force Instruction 36-2401, Correcting Officer and Enlisted Evaluation Reports;...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2008 | BC-2008-00763

    Original file (BC-2008-00763.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    She was under investigation from on/about 20 Dec 05 to 20 Jan 06. In addition, it is the commander’s responsibility to determine promotion testing eligibility. Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 23 May 08.

  • AF | BCMR | CY2008 | BC-2007-03340

    Original file (BC-2007-03340.DOC) Auto-classification: Denied

    Also during that time his supervisor conducted his initial performance feedback which was incorrectly written and marked as a midterm performance feedback while the memo for record (MFR) states it was an initial feedback and it was conducted with almost 90 days of supervision completed. DPSIDEP states the applicant filed an appeal through the Evaluation Reports Appeal Board (ERAB) under the provisions of AFI 36-2401, Correcting Officers and Enlisted Evaluation Reports. The complete DPSIDEP...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2010 | BC-2009-03284

    Original file (BC-2009-03284.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    In support of his request, the applicant submits his personal statement, copies of the referral EPR memorandum, the referral EPR, his rebuttal statement, the initial referral EPR, an award nomination, a letter to his congressman, his student training report, a memorandum from his group superintendent, a statement of suspect/witness complaint, an evaluation appeals form, and a letter from his commander. The complete DPSIDEP evaluation is at Exhibit B. ...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2009 | bc-2009-01709

    Original file (bc-2009-01709.docx) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 4 Feb 08, the applicant’s rater requested input from the previous rater for the EPR closing 28 Jan 08. On 13 Feb 08, the applicant appealed the EPR to the Evaluation Reports Appeal Board (ERAB) contending the EPR indicated incorrect dates of supervision. A complete copy of the DPSIDEP evaluation is at Exhibit C.

  • AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2006-03655

    Original file (BC-2006-03655.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    His career suffered due to having to appeal for 352 days to get an enlisted performance report (EPR) removed from his records by the Evaluation Reports Appeal Board (ERAB). The applicant’s supplemental promotion score was 320.07. CHARLENE M. BRADLEY Panel Chair AFBCMR BC-2006-03655 MEMORANDUM FOR THE CHIEF OF STAFF Under the authority of Section 1552, Title 10, United States Code and Air Force Instruction 36-2603, and having assured compliance with the provisions of the above regulation,...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2010 | BC-2010-03057

    Original file (BC-2010-03057.txt) Auto-classification: Approved

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2010-03057 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) rendered for the period 2 July 2009 through 15 April 2010 be voided and removed from her records. The following is a resume of the applicant’s EPR profile: PERIOD ENDING PROMOTION RECOMMENDATION 20 Dec 01 (SrA)...