RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2008-00675
INDEX CODE: 111.02
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) rendered for the period 22 Oct
06 through 16 Oct 07 be declared void and removed from his records.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
His rater purposely, willfully, and blatantly abused him verbally and
wrongfully counseled him on numerous occasions. She accused him of
being a liar upon hearsay, used profanity, and would not allow him the
opportunity to discuss the facts. As a new cross-trainee, he was told
that there was not enough support to help train him in his job. When
he asked for assistance, he was advised to read the Air Force
instruction.
In support of his appeal, the applicant provides an expanded statement
and supportive statements.
Applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
Information extracted from the Personnel Data System (PDS) indicates
that the applicant is currently serving on active duty in the grade of
technical sergeant, with a date of rank (DOR) of 1 Aug 03. His Total
Active Federal Military Service Date (TAFMSD) is 12 Feb 87.
Applicant’s EPR profile since 1996 follows:
PERIOD ENDING EVALUATION
6 Sep 96 5
2 Jun 97 4
2 Jun 98 5
31 Mar 99 5
31 Mar 00 4
31 Mar 01 5
31 Mar 02 5
3 Feb 03 5
3 Feb 04 5
3 Feb 05 5
3 Feb 06 4
21 Oct 06 5
* 21 Oct 07 3
* Contested Report.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
AFPC/DPSIDEP recommends denial noting the applicant filed an appeal
through the Evaluation Reports Appeals Board (ERAB) but was denied
relief because the board was not convinced the report was inaccurate
based on the evidence provided by the applicant.
AFPC/DPSIDEP indicates that some disagreements are likely to occur in
a worker-supervisor relationship since a worker must abide by a
supervisor's policies, decisions and expectations. Personnel who do
not perform at expected standards, or require close supervision, may
believe that an evaluator is personally biased; and the contested
report does indicate supervision was required. However, the conflict
generated by this personal attention is usually professional rather
than personal. Before an EPR is accepted for file, it goes through a
thorough administrative review process, including a "checks and
balances," to determine the accuracy of the report before it is made a
matter of record. Further, an evaluation report is considered to
represent the rating chain's best judgment at the time it is rendered.
Once a report is accepted for file, only strong evidence to the
contrary warrants removal of the report from the applicant's record.
In AFPC/DSIDEP’s view, the evidence does not substantiate that the
report was inaccurate or unjust.
A complete copy of the AFPC/DPSIDEP evaluation is at Exhibit C.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to applicant on 11
Apr 08 for review and response within 30 days. As of this date, no
response has been received by this office (Exhibit D).
_________________________________________________________________
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. The applicant’s complete
submission was thoroughly reviewed and his contentions were duly
noted. However, we did not find his assertions and the documentation
provided in support of his appeal sufficient to override the rationale
expressed by the Air Force office of primary responsibility (OPR). We
are not convinced the rater was unable to evaluate the applicant
honestly and to the best of his ability. Furthermore, we note the
additional rater concurred with the rater’s evaluation of the
applicant’s performance. In view of the above, and in the absence of
evidence which shows to our satisfaction the contested report was not
an accurate depiction of his performance at the time it was prepared,
we adopt the OPR’s rationale and conclude that no basis exists 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 this application 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 pertaining to AFBCMR Docket Number
BC-2008-00675 was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 15 Feb 08, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPSIDEP, dated 21 Mar 08.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 11 Apr 08.
B. J. WHITE-OLSON
Panel Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2008 | BC-2008-00344
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. Further, he was never provided any feedback that his supervisor was contemplating giving him an overall “4” rating. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence...
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 | CY2006 | BC-2006-02532
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2006-02532 INDEX CODE: 111.02 XXXXXXXXXX COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 26 FEB 2008 ___________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His enlisted performance report closing 15 Jan 04 be voided. There may be occasions when feedback was not provided during a reporting period. A complete copy of the...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-02414
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2006-02414 INDEX CODE: 111.02 XXXXXXX COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 15 FEB 2008 ___________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His enlisted performance report closing 13 Sep 05 be voided. ___________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: HQ AFPC/DPPPEP reviewed...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-02413
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2006-02413 INDEX CODE: 111.02 XXXXXXX COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 15 FEB 2008 ___________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His enlisted performance report (EPR) closing 15 Jul 05 rating of 3B be nullified. The applicant has not provided any statements from his rating chain nor official...
AF | BCMR | CY2010 | BC-2009-02730
The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit E. _________________________________________________________________ ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION: HQ AFPC/DPSIDEP recommends denial. The complete DPSIDEP evaluation is at Exhibit F. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF THE ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION: A copy of the additional Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 22 Jun 10, for review and comment...
AF | BCMR | CY2008 | BC-2007-02792
Specifically, on 16 Oct 06, he was given a profile that stated he was not world-wide deployable. 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. 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.
AF | BCMR | CY2008 | BC-2007-02691
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2007-02691 INDEX CODE: 111.02 COUNSEL: JOSEPH W. KASTL HEARING DESIRED: YES _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) rendered for the period 28 Jun 05 through 22 May 06 be declared void and removed from her records. It seems that the applicant had been accused of spousal abuse during an...
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 | CY2008 | BC-2007-02672
The Evaluation Reports Appeals Board (ERAB) denied her appeal because they were not convinced the report was inaccurate as written. The applicant has not provided any evidence to support her contention of not receiving feedback or being counseled on her shortcomings. The complete AFPC/DPSIDEP evaluation is at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the...