RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2007-04032
INDEX CODE: 111.00
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His enlisted performance report (EPR) for the period 30 Apr 05 to 20 Jan
06 be removed from his records.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
His EPR contains discrepancies that go against the Air Force Instruction 36-
2406, Officer and Enlisted Evaluation Systems.
He was not aware that the person who signed his EPR as rater was his
supervisor. He states he did not have any supporting documentation to
reflect who his supervisor was.
Statements in the EPR contradict one another.
He was informed he was going to be selected as a non-volunteer for Iraq and
working with the Army instead of his unit. This affected him in several
different ways (he was recently married and only had three months to get
his affairs in order). This affected his performance at work and he was
not able to perform at his full potential due to his mind being elsewhere.
On 9 Mar 05, he was deployed for training prior to deploying to Iraq. He
states he did not receive training and mainly stayed in his hotel room. He
was then informed he did not have the required security clearance for the
scheduled training.
He was deployed despite not having the required training. Once deployed,
he received one week of training before being released to work on his own.
He was counseled by the acting first sergeant on being returned home from
his deployment early and threatened with the loss of his reenlistment
bonus. Although he told the first sergeant he could have tried harder, he
states he believes he was returned home because he could not do his job and
he could not do his job because he was not provided proper training.
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.
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
senior airman.
In Nov 07, the applicant filed an appeal through the Evaluation Reports
Appeal Board (ERAB) under the provisions of AFI 36-2401, Correcting Officer
and Enlisted Evaluation Reports. The ERAB denied the request.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
AFPC/DPSIDEP recommends denial of the applicant’s request to void his EPR.
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 REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 11 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. Sufficient 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. We note that the performance
report in question contained the comment “not ready for promotion” which,
in itself, made the report a referral report. However, the report was not
properly referred in accordance with governing instructions. In order to
remove any possibility of an injustice to the applicant, 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.
We further recommend that Block IV, Promotion Recommendation, Additional
Rater’s Recommendation, be changed to “3 – Consider” since the report was
not a referral report. Therefore, we recommend that his records be
corrected to the extent indicated below.
_________________________________________________________________
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT:
The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating
to APPLICANT, be corrected to the following changes to his AF IMT 910,
Enlisted Performance Report (AB thru TSgt), rendered for the period 30
April 2005 to 20 January 2006:
a. The comment “not ready for promotion” in Block VI, Additional
Rater’s Comments, be removed.
b. The rating in Block IV, Additional Rater’s Recommendation, be
changed to “3 - Consider” rather than “2 – Not Recommended This Time.”
_________________________________________________________________
The following members of the Board considered Docket Number 2007-04032 in
Executive Session on 29 May 2008, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:
Mr. Wayne R. Gracie, Panel Chair
Mr. Vance E. Lineberger, Member
Mr. Garry G. Sauner, Member
All members voted to correct the records, as recommended. The following
documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, w/atchs, dated 4 Dec 07.
Exhibit B. Enlisted Performance Reports.
Exhibit C. Memorandum, AFPC/DPSIDEP, dated 12 Mar 08.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 11 Apr 08.
WAYNE R. GRACIE
Panel Chair
AFBCMR BC-2007-04032
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 XXXXXX, be
corrected to show that the comment “not ready for promotion” in
Block VI, Additional Rater’s
Comments, was removed and Block IV, Additional Rater’s
Recommendation, was a rating of
“3 - Consider” for his enlisted performance report rendered for the
period 30 April 2005 to
20 January 2006.
JOE G. LINEBERGER
Director
Air Force Review Boards Agency
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-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-2007-02545
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. In support of his request, the applicant provided statements in his own behalf, a chronological record of events,...
AF | BCMR | CY2008 | BC-2008-00763
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 | 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 | CY2009 | bc-2009-01709
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 | CY2008 | BC-2007-03340
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-2010-01284
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;...
In support of his appeal, the applicant provided a personal statement, copies of several of his EPRs, a statement from the rater and indorser of the contested report, and other documentation relating to his appeal. A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit C. The Chief, BCMR & SSB Section, AFPC/DPPPAB, also reviewed this application and indicated that the applicant was involved in an off- duty domestic incident during the time the contested EPR was being finalized. ...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2012 05342
The Evaluation Report Appeals Board (ERAB) directed that his EPR closing 29 Jun 06 be replaced; however, he should have been provided supplemental promotion consideration for promotion cycles 07E8 and 08E8. Regarding the applicants contention his EPR covering the period 1 Apr 05 through 30 Sep 06, which is only a matter of record because he requested that it replace another report, was in error because it was not signed by his additional rater at the time in violation of AFI 36-2406, the...