RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2008-01069
INDEX CODE: 111.02
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His AF IMT 910, Enlisted Performance Report (AB thru TSGT), dated 19 June
2005 be changed from a rating of 4 to 5.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
He was rated unfairly because he was on a profile and was told that he
didn’t deserve a 5. He recently went through his paperwork and was
informed that he was able to appeal his EPR rating. The rating has
affected his progress in the Air Force as far as his WAPS (Weighted Airmen
Promotion System) scores, his chance to get special duty assignments and/or
receiving a commission. If the rating is changed to a 5 rating it may help
him progress in the Air Force.
He was told that he did not deserve a 5B rating because he was on a profile
for a month. When he asked about the rating he was told by his rater’s
rater that he had no rights. He then asked to speak to the first sergeant
about the issue. After speaking to the first sergeant, his rater’s rater
told him that he would receive a Letter of Counseling (LOC) for going above
the chain of command. His rater said that he wanted to give the applicant
the 5B rating, but his rater would not let him.
In support of his request, the applicant provided personal statements, a
Letter of Recommendation dated 10 October 2006, AF Form 948 (Application
for Correction/Removal of Evaluation Reports) undated and unsigned, and. a
copy of the contested EPR.
His 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 senior
airman, having assumed that grade effective and with a date of rank (DOR)
of 4 November 2005. His Total Active Federal Military Service Date
(TAFMSD) is 20 May 2003.
The Applicant’s EPR profile since 2005 follows:
PERIOD ENDING PROMOTION RECOMMENDATION
*19 Jan 05 4
19 Jan 06 5
18 Jun 06 5
18 Jun 07 5
*Contested Report.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
AFPC/DPSIDEP recommends denial indicating that this evaluation is not
inaccurate or unjust because the applicant bases his case on his personal
opinion of the situation and unsubstantiated conjecture about the motives
of his evaluators as to why he thinks the report came out the way it did.
The rater bears the responsibility of what information will or will not go
into the evaluation, not the ratee. Since the contested report contains no
derogatory information and the applicant provided no statements of
substantiating evidence from any of his evaluators or first sergeant, it is
reasonable to assume that the report is a fair and accurate assessment of
the applicant’s performance
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 to the applicant on 20
June 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 error or 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 and demonstrated potential for the
period in question. In judging the merits of this case, we carefully
considered the applicant’s complete submission; 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. IAW AFI 36-
2406, Officer and Enlisted Evaluation System, the evaluation system focuses
on performance; this reflects the fact that how well the individual does
his job and the qualities the individual brings to the job, which is of
paramount importance to the Air Force. In the rating process, each
evaluator is required to assess a ratee’s performance, honestly and to the
best of their ability. We agree with AFPC/DPSIDEP that the applicant did
not provide substantiating evidence showing the contested report is not an
accurate depiction of his performance and demonstrated potential during the
period in question. Therefore, in the absence of 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-
01069 in Executive Session on 24 July 2008, under the provisions of AFI 36-
2603:
Mr. Joseph D. Yount, Panel Chair
Mr. Elwood C. Lewis III, Member
Mr. Grover L. Dunn, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 11 March 2008, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPSIDEP, dated 4 June 2008.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 20 June 2008.
JOSEPH D. YOUNT
PANEL CHAIR
AF | BCMR | CY2009 | BC-2008-02144
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 25 July 2008 for review and comment within 30 days. In this case, the rater provided a mid-term feedback; and although it was given to the ratee three months prior to the closeout date of the contested report, we agree with the determination of AFPC/DPSIDEP that...
AF | BCMR | CY2008 | BC-2008-00675
_________________________________________________________________ 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. A complete copy of the AFPC/DPSIDEP evaluation is at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF...
AF | BCMR | CY2008 | BC-2008-01364
The referral EPR should have been accomplished at the time he received his Article 15, Nonjudicial punishment, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) in July 2007. DPSIDEP states it appears the applicant wants them to believe that the referral report was not directed until January 2008, after receiving the December 2007 EPR. ________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not...
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;...
AF | BCMR | CY2009 | BC-2008-02713
The complete DPSIDEP evaluation, with attachment, is at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 3 October 2008 for review and comment within 30 days. As of this date, this office has received no response. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified that the evidence...
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 | 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-2008-00581
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 | CY2009 | BC-2009-00137
When he questioned his supervisor about his performance rating, he was told he would receive a five rating. 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 6 Mar 09 for review and comment within 30 days. In addition, we note the feedback worksheet provided by the applicant supports the rating he received.
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...