ADDENDUM TO
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-1994-04265
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: YES
________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His Enlisted Performance Report (EPR), closing out 5 October 1990, be removed from his records.
________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
On 21 September 1995, the Board considered and denied the applicant’s appeal requesting that his EPR closing out 5 October 1990 be removed from his records. A complete copy of the Record of Proceedings is attached at Exhibit F (with Exhibits A through E).
By DD Form 149, dated 28 April 2008, the applicant requests reconsideration of his request, contending the report was written six months after the closeout date and his rater stated he did not write or sign the EPR as he was deployed to a remote location during DESERT SHIELD/DESERT STORM. He also contends the EPR makes references to events that occurred after the closeout date of 5 October 1990.
In support of the appeal, the applicant submits copies of a statement from the rater of the contested EPR stating he did not complete the EPR; a letter of support from his commander at the time of the contested report; the contested EPR; a Report on Individual Personnel (RIP); a Brief in Support of Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Evidence Subject Matter Jurisdiction filed with the United States District Court, Eastern District of Arkansas, Western Division; a document pertaining to integrity/honesty; and a document pertaining to Operation DESERT STORM.
Applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit G.
________________________________________________________________
THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:
1. We have thoroughly reviewed the evidence of record and considered both the weight and relevance of the additional documentation provided by the applicant, and whether or not it was discoverable at the time of any previous application. Although the documentation he has furnished from the now-retired officer who conducted the Commander’s Review of the contested EPR is new and relevant, we are not persuaded that it meets the criteria for reconsideration as it appears to have been reasonably available when the original application was submitted. As the applicant has been previously advised, reconsideration is provided only where newly discovered relevant evidence is presented which was not available when the application was submitted. Further, the reiteration of facts we have previously addressed, uncorroborated personal observations, or additional arguments on the evidence of record are not adequate grounds for reopening a case. In view of the above and in the absence of new and relevant evidence discoverable at the time of any previous application, we find no basis to reconsider the applicant’s request.
2. The applicant's case is adequately documented and it has not been shown that a personal appearance with or without counsel will materially add to our understanding of the issue(s) involved. Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorably considered.
________________________________________________________________
THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:
The applicant be notified that the additional evidence presented did not meet the criteria for reconsideration by the Board; 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 the applicant’s request for reconsideration of AFBCMR Docket Number BC-1994-04265 in Executive Session on 4 December 2008, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:
Mr. Mr. Thomas S. Markiewicz, Chair
Ms. Michele M. Rachie, Member
Mr. Mark J. Novitski, Member, Member
BC-1994-04265
The following additional documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit F. Record of Proceedings, dated 26 Jul 96,
w/atchs.
Exhibit G. DD Form 149, dated 28 Apr 08, w/atchs.
THOMAS S. MARKIEWICZ
Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2004-03357
CLOSING DATE OVERALL EVALUATION 31 Dec 03 5 31 Dec 02 5 31 Dec 01 4 (Contested) 15 Nov 00 5 31 Dec 99 5 1 May 99 5 1 May 98 5 1 May 97 5 1 May 96 5 1 May 95 5 The applicant filed a similar appeal under the provisions of AFI 36- 2401. He further contended he had only 48 days of supervision with the rater of the 31 Dec 01 EPR, and that the closeout date was changed from 15 Nov 01 to 31 Dec 01. If the applicant received a new rater in Jul 01 as the Air Force asserts, then the EPR’s reporting...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-02202
On 20 July 2005, ARPC/DPBPP, requested the applicant provide a copy of the additional rater’s e-mail, dated 10 July 2003, which the applicant’s cites as an attachment in her Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records application package. We note the comments provided by the Air Force office of primary responsibility that although Air Force policy does require performance feedback for personnel, it does not replace day-to-day feedback; and, failure to conduct a required or requested...
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 | CY2006 | BC-2006-02065
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 that the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice. ________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not demonstrate the...
In his submissions to the Evaluation Reports Appeal Board (ERAB), he illustrated his insufficient training, his attempts to get training, and the different conversations he had with the rater concerning his duty performance and accomplished workload tasks. The applicant contends he did not receive the 28 Jun 96 feedback session as indicated on his 16 Nov 96 EPR; however, he did not provide anything from his evaluator to support his allegation. Especially in view of the fact that the report...
However, they do not, in our opinion, support a finding that the evaluators were unable to 3 ' 97-03510 render unbiased evaluations of the applicant's performance or that the ratings on the contested report were based on factors other than applicant's duty performance during the contested rating period. Applicant contends the contested report is an inaccurate account of his performance during the reporting period because the rater did not gather input from other sources pertaining to the...
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2006-02684
In support of his request, the applicant submits copies of two statements from orderly room personnel; EPRs closing 31 December 2004 and 19 April 2004; Performance Feedback Worksheet, dated 1 July 2004; Inspector General (IG) Personal and Fraud, Waste & Abuse Complaint; IG Complaint Response; Application for Correction/Removal of Evaluation Reports; Record Transmittal; and Evaluation Reports Appeal Board (ERAB) Disapproval. The applicant received a rating of a “4” on his EPR for the rating...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-02200
The applicant’s request under AFI 36-2401 to have the contested EPR removed from his records was denied by the ERAB. _________________________________________________________________ The following members of the Board considered Docket Number BC-2003-02200 in Executive Session on 8 October 2003, under the provisions of AFI 36- 2603: Mr. Thomas S. Markiewicz, Chair Ms. Martha Maust, Member Mr. Michael V. Barbino, Member By majority vote, the Board voted to deny the application. Exhibit B.
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2006-03204
Applicant states the evaluation of performance markings do not match up with the rater/additional rater's comments and promotion recommendation. 3.8.5.2 states do not suspense or require raters to submit signed/completed reports any earlier than five duty days after the close-out date. The applicant contends that he did not receive feedback and that neither the rater, nor the additional rater was his rater’s rater.
The applicant has not provided evidence to substantiate his allegation that racial favoritism played a role in the rating he received on the contested report. In regard to applicant’s request that his past performance reports be taken into consideration as indicators of his duty performance, DPMAJAl stated a report is an evaluation based on the quality and quantity of individual performance during a certain period. While laudatory of the applicant's performance, they do not, in...