RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2009-02670
INDEX CODE: 111.05
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
Her AF IMT 910, Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) (AB thru TSGT), rendered
for the period of 1 Apr 05 thru 31 Mar 06 be declared void and removed from
her records.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
She arrived on station in May 05 and never received her initial or mid-term
feedback sessions. Her rater documented that feedback was provided on 27
Jun 05; however, this is not true.
She should have received a performance feedback session 30 days after
supervision began and again halfway between the time supervision began and
on the projected performance report close-out date. She has suffered
personally and professionally because the report was not adequately
documented.
In support of the application, the applicant submits a copy of the
contested report.
The applicant's complete submission, with attachment, is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
Information extracted from the Military Personnel Data System (MilPDS)
indicates the applicant is currently assigned duties as the Assistant
Noncommissioned Officer in Charge of Military Justice in the grade of staff
sergeant having assumed that grade effective and with a data of rank of 1
Jun 03.
The following is a resume of the applicant’s Enlisted Performance Reports
(EPRs):
Close-out Date Overall Rating
8 May 00 5
31 Dec 00 5
31 Dec 01 5
31 Mar 03 5
31 Mar 04 5
31 Mar 05 5
+ 31 Mar 06 4
31 Mar 07 5
31 Mar 08 5
18 Jan 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 B.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
HQ AFPC/DPSIDEP recommends denial. DPSIDEP notes the applicant’s request
was reviewed and denied by the Evaluation Reports Appeal Board (ERAB).
DPSIDEP states verbal and/or written counseling can only be confirmed by
the member’s rating chain. 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. There may be occasions when feedback
was not provided during a reporting period; however, the lack of counseling
or feedback, by itself, is not a sufficient reason to challenge the
accuracy or justness of a report.
DPSIDEP states evaluators must confirm they did not provide counseling or
feedback and that it directly resulted in an unfair evaluation. DPSIDEP
notes the applicant did not provide any statements from her evaluators to
substantiate evidence that the feedback did not take place.
DPSIDEP opines the ratee is responsible for notifying the rater and if
necessary the rater’s rater when a required or requested feedback does not
take place. DPSIDEP notes the applicant does not state she made any
attempts to ensure she received her required feedbacks.
The complete DPSIDEP evaluation is at Exhibit B.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 13 Nov
09, for review and comment within 30 days. As of this date, this office
has received no response (Exhibit C).
_________________________________________________________________
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 found 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 6 May 10, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:
Panel Chair
Member
Member
The following documentary evidence was considered in AFBCMR BC-2009-02670:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 15 Jul 09, w/atch.
Exhibit B. Letter, HQ AFPC/DPSIDEP, dated 20 Oct 09.
Exhibit C. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 13 Nov 09.
Panel Chair
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-2009-00541
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 | 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-2010-00762
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-2009-00137
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 | CY2008 | BC-2008-00763
She was under investigation from on/about 20 Dec 05 to 20 Jan 06. In addition, it is the commander’s responsibility to determine promotion testing eligibility. Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 23 May 08.
AF | BCMR | CY2010 | BC-2009-03289
In support of his request, the applicant submits copies of the contested EPR, his quarterly award nomination letter, and his performance feedback worksheets. The following is a resume of his performance reports: Close-Out Date Overall Rating 25 May 01 5 25 May 02 5 9 Dec 02 5 27 May 03 5 13 Mar 04 5 13 Mar 05 5 13 Mar 06 5 +13 Mar 07 4 13 Mar 08 5 PERFORMANCE REPORTS CONTINUED: 13 Mar 09 5 + Contested Report The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application, extracted from the...
AF | BCMR | CY2010 | BC-2009-02480
DPSIDEP states the Air Force does not require the designated rater to be the ratee’s immediate supervisor. DPSIDEP notes the statement provided by the applicant was written by a member of the Air National Guard not assigned to his squadron. Exhibit C. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 26 Feb 10.
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 | 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...