RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2008-02144
INDEX CODE: 111.02
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
Her Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) rendered for the period 17 December
2005 through 16 December 2006 be upgraded, or declared void and removed
from her records.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
She was not notified that she was not meeting set standards. There was not
adequate time to correct the problems between the feedback session and the
actual report being finalized. Her supervisor sent her feedback via the
email vs. direct face-to-face counseling. The feedback scoring does not
match with the EPR rating.
In support of her appeal, the applicant provides a copy of the AF IMT 931
Performance Feedback Worksheet (AB thru TSGT) and a copy of the contested
report.
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 in the Regular Air Force in
the grade of staff sergeant (E-5), with a date of rank (DOR) of 1 May 2003.
Her Total Active Federal Military Service Date (TAFMSD) is 12 August 1998.
Applicant's EPR profile since 1998 follows:
RATING PERIOD PROMOTION RECOMMENDATION
11 Apr 00 5
26 Nov 00 5
26 Nov 01 5
15 Jul 02 5
16 Dec 03 5
RATING PERIOD PROMOTION RECOMMENDATION
16 Dec 04 5
16 Dec 05 5
*16 Dec 06 4
16 Dec 07 5
*Contested Report.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
AFPC/DPSIDEP recommends denial. DPSIDEP states that the applicant did not
file an appeal through the Evaluation Reports Appeals Board (ERAB) in
accordance with the governing directive; however, the report was forwarded
to the ERAB and they recommend denial, not being convinced that the report
is inaccurate or unjust.
Air Force policy requires initial feedback within 60 days of starting
supervision and a mid-term feedback at the halfway point between the
initial and the close-out-date of the report. In accordance with AFI 36-
2406, Officer and Enlisted Evaluations Systems, it is the ratee's
responsibility to notify the rater, and if necessary the rater's rater,
when a required or requested feedback did not occur. The applicant's
rating chain are the only members that can confirm if counseling and/or
feedback was actually provided, whether formal or informal, whether verbal
or in writing. In this case, she received the mid-term feedback three
months prior to the close-out date. It is DPSIDEP's opinion that there was
more than enough time to correct any problems.
She contends that she was never notified of not meeting standards; nowhere
in the report does it state, or imply, that she does not meet standards.
Actually, the report shows that she is better than average and just does
not exceed the standards.
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. 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. 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 there was ample time
to correct or improve any deficiencies that may have been noted during the
feedback session. Therefore, we agree with the opinion and recommendation
of DPSIDEP 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-
02144 in Executive Session on 16 September 2008, under the provisions of
AFI 36-2603:
Mr. Joseph D. Yount, Panel Chair
Mr. Grover L. Dunn, Member
Mr. Richard K. Hartley, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered AFBCMR Docket
Number BC-2008-02144:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 3 June 2008, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPSIDEP, dated 9 July 2008.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 25 July 2008.
JOSEPH D. YOUNT
Panel Chair
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-2008-02015
During the reporting period in question she received two documented formal feedbacks by two different raters. DPSIDEP further states she has not provided any statements from her evaluators and they cannot confirm whether or not, any other form of feedback or counseling was provided. 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...
AF | BCMR | CY2009 | BC-2009-00541
If there was a personality conflict between the applicant and the rater which was of such magnitude the rater could not be objective, the additional rater, or even the first sergeant and commander would have been aware of the situation and would have made any necessary adjustments to the applicants EPR; or at least supported the applicants appeal request. However, the applicant did not provide any statements from other applicable evaluators. Evaluators must confirm they did not provide...
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 | CY2010 | BC-2009-02670
While Air Force policy requires performance feedback for personnel, a direct correlation between the information provided during a feedback session, and the assessment on evaluation reports does not necessarily exist. As of this date, this office has received no response (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...
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 | CY2010 | BC-2010-00237
_________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: He received an unfair and unjust rating without any documentation and there was no feedback during or before 4 Feb 07 through 3 Feb 08. The Evaluations Reports Appeals Board (ERAB) denied his appeal of the contested report. 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...
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...
AF | BCMR | CY2010 | BC-2010-04487
The complete DPSIDEP evaluation is at Exhibit D. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant contends there are multiple administrative errors and this is an injustice because of her medical condition. She was never given a feedback during this rating period. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did...