RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2009-02730
INDEX CODE: 111.05
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: YES
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His AF Form 911, Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) (MSgt thru CMSgt)
rendered for the period of 12 Aug 08 thru 31 Mar 09 be declared void and he
receive supplemental promotion consideration beginning with cycle 09E8.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
His Officer-In-Charge did not like the decisions and personnel moves he
made to improve his section; therefore, she only gave him an overall rating
of “above average.”
The contested report is not an accurate assessment of his duty performance
during the period in question as noted by the ratings on his previous
reports. Additionally, there are inconsistencies in the comments of the
evaluator and the rating he received. The comments regarding his four
years in Recruiting and his non-participation in convoy missions are
irrelevant.
In support of the application, the applicant submits copies of his EPRs,
his AF Form 932, Performance Feedback Worksheet, a seven-page background
paper, e-mail messages, and inspection reports.
The applicant's complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
Information extracted from the Military Personnel Data Systems (MilPDS)
indicates the applicant is currently assigned duties as a Vehicle
Operations Supervisor and has been progressively promoted to the grade of
master sergeant having assumed that grade effective and with a date of rank
of 1 Feb 07.
The following is a resume of his EPRs:
Close-out Date Overall Rating
23 Aug 98 5
23 Aug 99 3
23 Aug 00 5
23 Feb 01 5
23 Feb 02 5
23 Feb 03 5
23 Feb 04 5
23 Feb 05 5
23 Feb 06 5
30 Nov 06 5
30 Nov 07 5
11 Aug 08 5
+31 Mar 09 4
+ Contested Report
The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application, extracted from
the applicant’s military records, are contained in the letters prepared by
the appropriate office of the Air Force at Exhibits B and C.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS:
HQ AFPC/DPSIDEP recommends denial of the applicant’s request to void the
EPR. In addition, the Evaluation Reports Appeals Board (ERAB) denied the
applicant’s request.
DPSIDEP states ratings are not erroneous or unjust because they are
inconsistent with other ratings the rater may have received in the past. A
report evaluates performance during a specific period and reflects the
ratee’s performance, conduct, and potential at that time, in that position.
An ability to function well in one positin at a given time may change in
another job at another time. Sometimes an individual can stay in the same
job and a change in supervisors will produce a change in performance
standards which could cause a marked change in the next report.
DPSIDEP notes the applicant has not provided any evidence to support his
claim. He must provide factual, specific and substantiated information
from credible officials based on firsthand observation and knowledge.
DPSIDEP opines the evidence provided by the applicant supports the EPR
rating and indicates the report was fair and accurate as written.
His contentions that he was never given any clear direction or training on
his role or position are unsubstantiated by his initial feedback which
outlines what was expected of him and addresses areas for improvement.
The complete DPSIDEP evaluation is at Exhibit B.
HQ AFPC/DPSOE recommends denial of the applicant’s request for supplemental
promotion consideration. DPSOE states the first time the report will be
used in the promotion process cycle is cycle 10E8 to senior master sergeant
(promotions effective Apr 10 – Mar 11). The contested report was not used
during the 09E8 cycle.
The complete DPSOE evaluation is at Exhibit C.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
The applicant states his EPR was improperly administered because his
rater’s rater was bypassed due to leave. The instruction states that a
rater cannot bypass his/her rater. He tried to help his rater understand
the importance of following Air Force Instructions; however, she chose to
ignore him. He feels the report was used to discredit him as a senior
noncommissioned officer and hinder the progression of his Air Force career.
The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit E.
_________________________________________________________________
ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
HQ AFPC/DPSIDEP recommends denial. DPSIDEP states inaccurate designations
and failures to change raters may take place when personnel are reassigned,
work centers reorganized, functional areas or units realigned, etc.
DPSIDEP notes in order to substantiate his claim, the applicant will need
statements from both the individuals who signed the report and from the
individuals who believe they should have written the report. In addition,
the erroneous evaluator must clearly explain why he or she wrote and signed
the report when they were not the rater. Likewise, the correct rater must
explain why he or she did not write the report.
DPSIDEP also notes the additional rater could have changed after the report
closed out but before the report was ready for endorsement.
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 within 30 days. As of this
date, this office has received no response (Exhibit G).
_________________________________________________________________
THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:
1. The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by existing law or
regulations.
2. The application was time filed.
3. Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the
existence of error or injustice. Although the applicant states his EPR was
improperly processed through the rating chain, he has not provided
sufficient evidence to prove that an error occurred in the processing of
his EPR. 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 decision that the applicant has not been the victim of an
error or injustice. However, if the applicant can provide further
documentation which substantiates an error, the Board would reconsider his
request. Without evidence to the contrary, we find no basis to grant the
relief sought in this application.
4. 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 involved. Therefore, the request for a
hearing is not favorably considered.
_______________________________________________________________
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 BC-2010-02730 in
Executive Session on 27 Jul 10, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:
, Vice Chair
, Member
, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 30 Jun 10, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Letter, HQ AFPC/DPSIDEP, dated 20 Oct 09.
Exhibit C. Letter, HQ AFPC/DPSOE, dated 27 Oct 09.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 11 Dec 09.
Exhibit E. Letter, Applicant, dated 11 Jan 10.
Exhibit F. Letter, HQ AFPC/DPSIDEP, dated 18 May 10
Vice Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2010 | BC-2010-01282
The applicant did not provide any evidence to support his contention of retaliation. The DPSIDEP complete evaluation is at Exhibit B. AFPC/DPSOE does not provide a recommendation. The DPSOE complete evaluation is at Exhibit C. ___________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant responded by withdrawing his request to be awarded the AFCM.
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 | CY2009 | BC 2009 00079
The complete AFPC/DPSID evaluation is at Exhibit B. AFPC/DPSOE states the first time the contested EPR will be used in the promotion process is during cycle 09E8 to senior master sergeant (2-20 Feb 09). The complete AFPC/DPSOE evaluation is at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS: Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on 6 Mar 09 for review and comment within 30 days. ...
AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-01820
The applicant filed an appeal through the Evaluation Report Appeals Board (ERAB) under the provisions of AFI 36-2401, Correcting Officer and Enlisted Evaluation Reports, however, the ERAB was not convinced the contested report was inaccurate or unjust and disapproved the applicants request. The complete DPSOE evaluation is at Exhibit D. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Copies of the Air Force evaluations were...
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 | CY2012 | BC-2012-02557
_________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: His rater did not provide him with a mid-term feedback and there is evidence to support that a personality conflict existed between him and his rater. He asked for feedback and notified his chain-of-command that he was not provided feedback. In the absence of any evidence of unfair treatment or injustice, DPSID finds that the ratings were given fairly and IAW all Air Force policies and procedures.
AF | BCMR | CY2010 | BC-2010-01327
He was considered but not selected for promotion to the grade of SMSgt during the 96, 97, 98, 99, 00 and 01, E-8 promotion cycles. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSOE recommends denial of his request to change his DOR to SMSgt. The complete DPSOE evaluation is at Exhibit C. AFPC/DPSIDEP recommends denial of his request for supplemental promotion consideration to the grade of CMSgt, to remove his EPR ending 12 October 1990, and...
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 | 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 | CY2011 | BC-2011-04746
The first time the contested report was used in the promotion process was cycle 11E6. The complete AFPC/DPSID evaluation is at Exhibit D. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: On 23 Mar 2012, copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant for review and comment within 30 days. ________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: The pertinent military records...