RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2008-01454
INDEX CODE: 111.02, 111.05
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
Her AF Form 911, Enlisted Performance Report (EPR), rendered for the period
of 17 April 2006 to 16 April 2007 be voided and removed from her military
records.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
The numerical rating is not consistent with the positive comments given by
her rater. Her rating is an injustice when viewed in light of her actual
performance as evidenced by the statement from her direct, daily
supervisor.
In support of her request, the applicant provided two personal statements
dated 8 April 2008 and 5 November 2007, the contested EPR for the rating
period of 17 April 2006 to 16 April 2007, ten EPRs, two Letters of
Evaluation (LOE) dated 21 September 2007 and 6 February 2007, two AF Forms
931, Performance Feedback Worksheet (AB thru TSGT), dated 29 January 2007
and 13 November 2006, five character reference statements dated 30 October
2007; 25 October 2007, 9 October 2007, and two dated 12 May 2007; and an
awards and decorations information printout dated 26 December 2007.
Her complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
Information extracted from the Military Personnel Data System (MilPDS)
indicates the applicant is currently serving on active duty in the grade of
technical sergeant, having assumed that grade effective and with a date of
rank (DOR) of 1 October 2004. Her Total Active Federal Military Service
Date (TAFMSD) is 10 May 1990.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
AFPC/DPSIDEP recommends denial indicating that the contested report was
prepared IAW current Air Force Policy and is acceptable as written.
DPSIDEP states that the rater probably should have stated why she was not
recommending the applicant for promotion at that time, which would have
resulted in a referral report; however, there were no procedural guidelines
violated by not doing so.
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. 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 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 the rating process, each evaluator is required to assess a
ratee’s performance, honestly and to the best of their ability. Although,
the applicant provided supportive statements from co-workers, we are not
persuaded that she was evaluated unfairly during the evaluation period by
those responsible for assessing her performance. Therefore, 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 the
absence of persuasive 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-
01454 in Executive Session on 28 August 2008, under the provisions of AFI
36-2603:
Mr. Wallace F. Beard, Jr., Panel Chair
Ms. Dee R. Reardon, Member
Ms. Karen A. Holloman, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 29 April 2008, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPSIDEP, dated 23 June 2008,
w/atchs.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 11 July 2008.
WALLACE F. BEARD, Jr.
Panel Chair
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-2008-01364
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 | CY2009 | BC-2008-01890
She also contends that her rater did not discuss the statement with her before the report became a matter of record. _______________________________________________________________ A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to applicant on 11 July 2008 for review and response. _______________________________________________________________ RECOMMENDATION OF THE BOARD: The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of error or injustice; that...
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-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-2008-02193
Should the Board choose to correct the record per DPSIDEP’s recommendation, they could direct the applicant be supplementally considered for promotion to CMSgt for cycle 06E9 and 07E9 during the next SNCO Supplemental Board (July 2009). DPSOE states that since the applicant had a weighable report (close out date between 1 August 2005 – 31 July 2006) on file at the time the Board met, he was considered, but not selected, for promotion to CMSgt during cycle 06E9. The complete DPSOE...
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-2007-03646
_________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: His report was not written by the correct rater and lacks counseling or performance feedback. To support his claim that the report was not written by the designated rater he provided, in addition to other documents, a statement from the rater who wrote the report, a statement from the rater he believes should have written the report and a statement from the first sergeant. ...
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-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);...