RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2009-00455
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) rendered for the period 29 September 2004 through 26 November 2005 be removed from his records.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
His Article 15 was set aside and all benefits and pay entitlements were granted and restored.
In support of his request, the applicant provides a personal statement and the portion of his Article 15 reflecting his punishment of reduction in grade to senior airman and a reprimand, be set-aside.
The applicants complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The Military Personnel Data System (MilPDS) reflects the applicant is currently serving on active duty in the grade of technical sergeant with a date of rank of 1 May 2006. He has a total Active Federal Military Service Date of 8 March 1995 and a projected date of separation of 24 February 2010.
The following is a resume of the applicants EPR profile:
PERIOD ENDING PROMOTION RECOMMENDATION
09 Jan 97 5
11 Aug 97 3
11 Aug 98 4
11 Aug 99 5
11 Aug 00 4
11 Aug 01 5
The applicants EPR profile, continued:
11 Aug 02 5
28 Sep 03 5
28 Sep 04 5
26 Nov 05* 3
26 Nov 06 5
* Contested report
The remaining relevant facts, extracted from the applicants service records, are contained in the advisory opinion prepared by the Air Force office of primary responsibility at Exhibit B.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
AFPC/DPSIDEP recommends denial and states, in part, that although the MilPDS reflects the contested report, the actual EPR, itself, is missing. Therefore, an Air Force Form 77, Letter of Evaluation, has been placed in his record explaining the report is missing but the overall rating was a 3. Without a copy of the report, they are unable to determine whether the Article 15 was mentioned or whether it was the basis for the overall rating of 3. Additionally, without a copy of the report, or statements from the evaluators, they cannot confirm whether the report contained inaccurate information or not; therefore, the MilPDS update must remain.
DPSIDEP indicates the applicant filed an appeal through the Evaluation Reports Appeal Board (ERAB) under the provisions of Air Force Instruction 36-2401; however, it was returned in February 2007 without action for additional documentation, and closed in May 2008 after receiving no response.
The complete AFPC/DPSIDEP evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit B.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 8 May 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 not timely filed; however, it is in the interest of justice to excuse the failure to timely file.
3. Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of an 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 and adopt their rationale as the basis for our conclusion the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice. Therefore, in the absence of evidence showing the contested report is an inaccurate depiction of his performance during the rating period in question, 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 this application in Executive Session on 15 July 2009, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:
, Panel Chair
, Member
, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered in connection with AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2009-00455:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 12 Jan 09, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Letter, AFPC/DPSIDEP, dated 15 Apr 09, w/atchs.
Exhibit C. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 8 May 09.
Panel Chair
2
3
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-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 | CY2010 | BC-2010-00362
_________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 24 March 2010 for review and response within 30 days (Exhibit C). 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 and adopt its rationale as the basis for our conclusion...
AF | BCMR | CY2010 | BC-2010-03057
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2010-03057 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) rendered for the period 2 July 2009 through 15 April 2010 be voided and removed from her records. The following is a resume of the applicants EPR profile: PERIOD ENDING PROMOTION RECOMMENDATION 20 Dec 01 (SrA)...
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 | CY2009 | BC-2009-01716
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS A complete copy of the AFPC/DPSIDEP evaluation is at exhibit C. 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.
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 | CY2010 | BC-2010-01551
DPSIDEP states the applicant did not file an appeal through the Evaluation Reports and Appeals Board (ERAB) under the provisions of Air Force Instruction 36- 2401, Correcting Officer and Enlisted Evaluation Reports; however, the ERAB reviewed the applicants request and recommended denial as they were not convinced the contested report was inaccurate or unjust. Since the EPR is not completed in accordance with Air Force Instruction 36-2406 and the applicant has failed to provide the...
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-2009-01720
His Officer Performance Report (OPR) rendered for the period 2 Apr 06 through 30 May 07 be declared void and removed from his records, and a reaccomplished OPR be accepted for file in its place. Additionally, the reviewer of the contested OPR, an Air Force officer, could have intervened and had the report adjusted before it became a matter of record. The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2009-01720 in Executive Session on 7 Oct 09, under the provisions of...