RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2008-00581
INDEX CODE: 111.05
XXXXXXX COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His AF IMT 910, Enlisted Performance Report (EPR), rendered for the period
19 June 2006 through 18 June 2007, in Section III, be corrected to reflect
an "X" in item 5, "Exceptionally Effective Leader" and an "X" in item 7,
"Highly Skilled Writer and Communicator."
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
His midterm feedback rendered on 5 January 2007 did not reflect any
problems. His rater did not inform him she was marking him down in two
areas on his EPR.
In support of his application, applicant provides a copy of AF IMT 948,
Application for Correction/Removal of Evaluation Reports, copies of the
EPRs, AF IMT 931, Performance Feedback Worksheet, and a copy AF IMT 77,
Letter of Evaluation (LOE).
Applicant's complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
Applicant is currently serving in the Regular Air Force in the grade of
technical sergeant.
The applicant did not file an appeal under the provisions of AFI 36-2401,
Correcting Officer and Enlisted Evaluation Reports.
During the reporting period in question, the applicant was deployed to Ali
Air Base, Iraq in support of IRAQI FREEDOM from 19 January 2007 through 22
May 2007. A letter of evaluation was rendered on the applicant highlighting
his leadership performance while TDY.
The following is a resume of the applicant's recent staff sergeant EPR
profile.
PERIOD ENDING OVERALL EVALUATION
19 Jun 05 5
18 Jun 06 5
21 May 07 LOE
* 18 Jun 07 5
* - Contested reports
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
AFPC/DPSIDEP recommends denial and states that there were no procedural or
administrative errors or injustices. The evidence shows that the report is
accurate as written.
The applicant contends his feedback did not indicate any problems; that his
rater did not inform him that he was being marked down; and that he did not
have time to correct the two areas he was marked down on. Also the
applicant contends the rater did inform him he was getting marked down, and
that he did not get a chance to correct these areas. Air Force policy does
not require a rater to inform an applicant of his rating. Guidance
prohibits showing the report to the applicant until it becomes a matter of
record.
AFPC/DPSIDEP's complete evaluation is at Exhibit B.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 11
April 2008 for review and comment within 30 days. As of this date, this
office has received no 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 an error or an injustice. 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. The
applicant’s contentions are duly noted; however, we agree with the opinion
and recommendation of the Air Force office of primary responsibility and
adopt its rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant has
not been the victim of an error or injustice. In regards to his contention
that his midterm feedback did not reflect any problems, the Board notes
that the rater specifically detailed additional comments on the feedback
worksheet that provide a possible basis for markdowns on his report.
Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, the Board finds no
compelling basis to recommend that the contested report be corrected.
_________________________________________________________________
THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:
The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not demonstrate
the existence of a 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-2008-00581
in Executive Session on 29 May 2008, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:
Mr. Wayne R. Gracie, Panel Chair
Mr. Garry G. Sauner, Member
Mr. Vance E. Lineberger, Member
The following documentary evidence pertaining to Docket Number BC-2008-
00581 was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 4 Feb 08, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Letter, AFPC/DPSIDEP, dated 21 Mar 08.
Exhibit C. Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 11 Apr 08.
WAYNE R. GRACIE
Panel Chair
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-2007-02545
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 | CY2009 | BC-2008-02194
Unfortunately, in this case, she did receive an initial feedback, and as explained in the rater’s statement the midterm feedback was not accomplished due to her deployment; however the rater states he did provide verbal feedback. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to applicant on 25 July 2008 for review and response. ...
AF | BCMR | CY2008 | BC-2008-00549
Unfortunately the applicant provided nothing from the evaluators even after the information was requested. Since DPSIDEP cannot confirm that the feedback was not accomplished, DPSIDEP considers the report to be accurate and points out, that the latest version of the evaluation forms now requires ratees to sign the report, unless there is an absence, and in this case, the ratee was deployed. DPSIDEP could correct the feedback information via the Evaluation Reports Appeal Board (ERAB);...
AF | BCMR | CY2009 | BC-2008-02015
During the reporting period in question she received two documented formal feedbacks by two different raters. DPSIDEP further states she has not provided any statements from her evaluators and they cannot confirm whether or not, any other form of feedback or counseling was provided. AFPC/DPSIDEP’s complete evaluation is at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded...
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 | CY2006 | BC-2006-02059
The applicant filed an appeal under the provisions of AFI 36-2401, Correcting Officer and Enlisted Evaluation Reports. A complete copy of the 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 18 Aug 06 for review and comment within 30 days. MARILYN M. THOMAS Vice Chair AFBCMR BC-2006-03059 MEMORANDUM FOR THE CHIEF OF STAFF Having...
AF | BCMR | CY2008 | BC-2007-03582
Evaluators must confirm they did not provide counseling or feedback, and that this directly resulted in an unfair evaluation. 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 14 Dec 07, for review and comment within 30 days. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES...
AF | BCMR | CY2009 | BC-2008-01454
A complete copy of the AFPC/DPSIDEP evaluation, with attachments, 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 July 2008 for review and comment within 30 days. In the rating process, each evaluator is required to assess a ratee’s performance, honestly and to the best of their ability. Therefore, we agree with the opinion and...
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...