RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2008-00344
INDEX CODE: 111.02
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) rendered for the period 20 Dec
04 through 22 Oct 05 be declared void and removed from his records.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
His supervisor reprised against him for refusing to prepare a
recommendation for a decoration package concerning an undeserving
subordinate by giving an overall rating of “4.” His accomplishments
and prior reports show he is a quality airman who is deserving of a
“5” rating. He believes his supervisor abused his power and position
because of their disagreement by punishing him.
In support of his appeal, the applicant provides copies of his
Inspector General (IG) complaint, supportive statements, extracts from
his military personnel records, his EPRs, to include the contested
report, excerpts of AFI 90-301 and AFI 36-2401, and other documents
associated with the matter under review.
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
technical sergeant, with a date of rank (DOR) of 1 Oct 02. His Total
Active Federal Military Service Date (TAFMSD) is 3 Jul 89.
Applicant’s EPR profile since 1997 follows:
PERIOD ENDING EVALUATION
31 Mar 97 5
19 Mar 98 5
19 Mar 99 5
19 Mar 00 5
19 Dec 00 5
19 Dec 01 5
19 Dec 02 5
19 Dec 03 5
19 Dec 04 5
* 22 Oct 05 4
22 Oct 06 5
29 Jun 07 5
* Contested Report.
On 21 Nov 05, the applicant filed an IG complaint based on the
following allegations:
a. In Aug 05, his rater reprised against him by threatening him
with a “4” EPR for a protected communication made directly to the
rater.
b. In Aug 05, his rater reprised against him by threatening to
withhold a recommendation for his end-of-tour decoration for a
protected communication made directly to the rater.
c. On or about 28 Oct 05, his rater reprised against him by
awarding him an overall “4” rating on his EPR for a protected
communication made to the 22 TRS/CC.
d. On or about 28 Oct 05, his rater reprised against him by
increasing the number of downgrades on the front of his EPR from two
to four for his stated intent to make a protected communication to the
92 ARW/IG and his commander.
e. On or about 28 Oct 05, his rater reprised against him by
abruptly removing him from his E Flight Chief duties due to his stated
intent to make a protected communication to the 92 ARW/IG and his
commander.
f. On or about 4 Nov 05, his rater reprised against him by not
recommending an end-of-tour decoration due to his stated intent to
make a protected communications to the 92 ARW/IG and his commander.
g. On or about 28 Oct 05, his additional rater reprised against
him by concurring with the award of an overall “4” rating on his EPR
for a protected communication made directly to the commander.
h. On or about 28 Oct 05, his commander reprised against him by
disapproving his end-of-tour decoration for a protected communication
made directly to the commander.
i. On or about 28 Oct 05, his commander reprised against him by
disapproving his end-of-tour decoration for a protected communication
made directly to the commander.
From 11 Jan 06 to 23 Jun 06, an IG investigation was conducted and all
of the applicant’s allegations were unsubstantiated.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
AFPC/DPSIDEP recommends denial indicating the evidence showed the
report was an accurate assessment of the applicant’s performance.
Further, the applicant did not file an IG complaint until Nov 05,
which was after the close-out date of the EPR. Although
unsubstantiated, they believe it would have carried more weight had he
filed in Aug 05 when he claims the threat was made. In AFPC/DPSIDEP’s
view, there were no errors or injustices regarding the contested
report.
A complete copy of the AFPC/DPSIDEP evaluation is at Exhibit C.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
Applicant reviewed the advisory opinion and furnished a response
indicating that other than the reprisal against him, he has been a
stellar performer. Further, he was never provided any feedback that
his supervisor was contemplating giving him an overall “4” rating. He
asks the Board to consider all the evidence in its entirety and
examine the logic of his case. However, he will respect whatever
decision the Board makes regarding his appeal.
Applicant’s complete response, with attachments, 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. 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 (OPR) and adopt its rationale as the
basis for our decision that the applicant has failed to sustain his
burden of establishing the existence of either an error or injustice.
We find no evidence which convinces us the applicant’s evaluators were
unable to render fair and honest assessments of his performance at the
time it was rendered, or that the contested EPR had its basis in
factors other than his performance, to include reprisal.
Additionally, we note an IG investigation was conducted regarding his
allegations of reprisal and found them to be unsubstantiated. 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-
2008-00344 in Executive Session on 21 May 08, under the provisions of
AFI 36-2603:
Ms. B. J. White-Olson, Panel Chair
Mr. Elwood C. Lewis III, Member
Mr. James A. Wolffe, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 16 Jan 08, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPSIDEP, dated 12 Mar 08.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 18 Apr 08.
Exhibit E. Letter, applicant, undated, w/atchs.
B. J. WHITE-OLSON
Panel Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2009 | BC-2008-02088
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2008-02088 INDEX CODE: 111.02 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: The Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) rendered for the period 22 May 06 through 21 May 07 be removed from his records. AFPC/DPSIDEP's complete evaluation is at Exhibit...
AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-00720
In support of his request, the applicant provides a personal statement, excerpts from his medical records, letters of support, and other documentation associated with his request. The following is a resume of his EPR ratings, commencing with the report closing 26 Oct 07: RATING PERIOD PROMOTION RECOMMENDATION 26 Oct 07 5 20 Dec 06 5 20 Jun 06 4 * 13 Oct 05 2 13 Oct 04 5 * Contested Report Under separate cover, the applicant requested assistance from Senator Murray on 19 Jan 11 in support of...
AF | BCMR | CY2009 | BC-2009-01997
On 20 Jan 04, the applicant initiated an AF Form 102, Inspector General Personal and Fraud, Waste and Abuse Complaint Registration , alleging reprisal and abuse of authority by his chain of command relative to his EPR and his request for extension of his (DEROS). On 20 Dec 05, the applicant was notified by Headquarters, Air Mobility Command Office of the Inspector General (HQ AMC/IG) of its findings regarding his allegations. SAF/IG reviewed the HQ AMC/IG report of investigation and...
DPPPA indicated that the second DoD/IG complaint in May 97, contending further reprisal alleging that his command denied him an MSM, downgraded his 14 Jun 97 EPR, and assigned him to an inappropriate position, for the protected communication to the IG and wing safety officials, did not substantiate the applicant was the victim of continued reprisal. With regard to applicant’s request for promotion, JA agrees with HQ AFPC/DPPPWB’s assessments that should the Board void or modify either of...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-03142
However, on 27 Aug 01, the squadron commander reported to the Wing IG he was considering removing the applicant as NCOIC of the Hydraulics shop because he was inciting his personnel over the manning issue and continuing to complain about it outside the rating chain. The complete evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit D. AFPC/JA recommends the LOR administered to the applicant on 25 Mar 02, the EPR rendered on him closing 19 Jul 02, and the AF Form 418 be voided and removed from his...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC-2012-02987
On 13 Jul 11, the DoD/IG office completed their review of the applicants reprisal case and determined that there was no evidence of reprisal/abuse of authority. On 19 Jan 12, the DoD/IG completed their review of the applicants complaint dated 4 Jul 11, and determined that there was no evidence of reprisal by her former commander. DPSID states that Air Force policy is that an evaluation report is accurate as written when it becomes a matter of record.
AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-01393
The applicant’s complete response w/attachments, is at Exhibit F. ________________________________________________________________ disagrees with 5 of the Air Force offices of THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT: 1. The applicant’s contentions that her contested EPR does not accurately reflect a true account of her performance and enforcement of standards, that her rater gave her deceptive feedback, and that a rating markdown in Section III, block 2, of the EPR was in reprisal for her involvement in...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 04268
The complete DPSOE evaluation is at Exhibit C. AFPC/DPSID recommends denial of applicants requests to remove the contested EPRs ending 12 Aug 09 and 29 Jun 10. Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of an error or injustice to warrant reversing his demotion to the grade of SSgt, promoting him to the grade of MSgt with back pay or removing the contested EPRs from his record. Therefore, aside from DPSOEs recommendation to time bar the applicants...
He does not believe that the voiding and removal of the 1996 EPR can have any “positive effect.” The DMSM (1OLC) he received was the result of corrective action taken after the DTRA IG recommended he receive an appropriate end of tour award. First, he received the DMSM for his assignment ending in 1996 as corrective action in 1999. The applicant’s DMSM could not be considered by the 97E8 promotion board because it was not in his records.
Available documentation reflects that: On 9 March 1997, the applicant filed a complaint with the Secretary of the Air Force (SAF/IGQ) alleging the squadron commander reprised against him for a protected disclosure by removing him from his lieutenant colonel position in the squadron and reassigning him to a captain’s position in the group. Applicant’s complete statement, with attachments, is at Exhibit G. By letter dated 19 October 1999, applicant provided the results of his request for a...