RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2009-02480
INDEX CODE: 111.02
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His AF IMT 910, Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) (AB thru TSGT), rendered
for the period 22 Nov 06 thru 15 Jun 07, be corrected or declared void and
removed from his records.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
In Feb 08, he reviewed his records in the Virtual Military Personnel Flight
(VMPF) and discovered he had received a “3” rating EPR. The writer of the
report was never assigned as his rater. He believes the report was written
at the last minute so the unit would not break a suspense date.
He always performed his best and received an Air Force Achievement Medal
(AFAM) for meritorious service at the end of his tour. The award was not
included in the EPR as a significant accomplishment.
He has received ratings of “5” consistently throughout his career and feels
that a substandard rating of “3” will negatively impact his Air Force
career and promotion potential.
In support of the application, the applicant submits a personal statement,
copies of his AFAM, an unsigned character support letter, and EPR bullets.
The applicant's complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
Information extracted from Military Personnel Data Systems (MilPDS)
indicates the applicant currently assigned duties as an Installation
Patrolman in the Security Forces Squadron. He is currently serving in the
grade of staff sergeant, having assumed that grade effective and with a
date of rank of 1 Feb 05.
The following is a resume of his performance reports:
Close Out Date Overall Rating
15 Sep 02 5
15 Sep 03 5
15 Sep 04 5
15 Sep 05 5
15 Sep 06 5
+15 Jun 07 3
15 Jun 08 4
15 Jun 09 5
+ Contested Report
The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application, extracted from
the applicant’s military records, are contained in the letter prepared by
the appropriate office of the Air Force at Exhibit C.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
HQ AFPC/DPSIDEP recommends denial. DPSIDEP states the applicant filed an
appeal through the Evaluation Reports Appeals Board (ERAB); however, the
ERAB denied his request. DPSIDEP notes only members in the rating chain
can confirm if counseling and/or feedback was provided.
DPSIDEP states the Air Force does not require the designated rater to be
the ratee’s immediate supervisor. Inaccurate designations and failures to
change raters can occur. The applicant will need statements from both
individuals who wrote and signed the report and from the individuals, he
believes, that should have written the report. The dates of supervision
and an explanation of events should be provided.
DPSIDEP notes the statement provided by the applicant was written by a
member of the Air National Guard not assigned to his squadron.
Additionally, Air National Guard members are not permitted to rate active
duty members. Furthermore, the applicant’s statement has not been
substantiated.
The complete 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 26 Feb
10, for review and comment within 30 days. As of this date, this office
has received no response (Exhibit D).
_________________________________________________________________
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. 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 the
applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice. Therefore, in
the absence of evidence to the contrary, we fund no 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 8 Apr 10, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:
Panel Chair
Member
Member
The following documentary evidence was considered in AFBCMR BC-2009-02480:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 4 Jun 09, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Letter, HQ AFPC/DPSIDEP, dated 29 Jan 10.
Exhibit C. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 26 Feb 10.
Panel Chair
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 | CY2010 | BC-2010-00686
DPSIDEP states the applicant’s request for relief was denied by the Evaluation Reports Appeals Board (ERAB). The complete DPSIDEP evaluation is at Exhibit B. The applicant asserts that his supervisor included comments in his EPR that occurred outside of the rating period and that he was not provided initial or midterm feedback; however, he has not provided evidence which substantiates his claim.
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-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-2009-01709
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-2009-03284
In support of his request, the applicant submits his personal statement, copies of the referral EPR memorandum, the referral EPR, his rebuttal statement, the initial referral EPR, an award nomination, a letter to his congressman, his student training report, a memorandum from his group superintendent, a statement of suspect/witness complaint, an evaluation appeals form, and a letter from his commander. The complete DPSIDEP evaluation is at Exhibit B. ...
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 | CY2013 | BC 2012 05342
The Evaluation Report Appeals Board (ERAB) directed that his EPR closing 29 Jun 06 be replaced; however, he should have been provided supplemental promotion consideration for promotion cycles 07E8 and 08E8. Regarding the applicants contention his EPR covering the period 1 Apr 05 through 30 Sep 06, which is only a matter of record because he requested that it replace another report, was in error because it was not signed by his additional rater at the time in violation of AFI 36-2406, the...
AF | BCMR | CY2010 | BC-2010-00762
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2010-00762 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES ________________________________________________________________ THE APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) rendered for the period from 8 February 2008 through 1 October 2008 be changed to reflect the correct inclusive dates, remove duplicate bullet statements, and reflect the correct dates of supervision. She...
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...