RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2009-03289
INDEX CODE: 111.05
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His AF Form 910, Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) (AB thru TSGT), rendered
for the period of 14 Mar 06 through 13 Mar 07 be declared void and removed
from his record.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
His interim and mid-term performance feedbacks show progression up to his
final feedback session before his EPR was written with only the slightest
markdowns. He was nominated as the Noncommissioned Officer (NCO) of the
Quarter during the time his EPR closed-out.
In support of his request, the applicant submits copies of the contested
EPR, his quarterly award nomination letter, and his performance feedback
worksheets.
The applicant's complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The applicant is a technical sergeant.
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 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 states the Evaluation Reports
Appeals Board (ERAB) recommends denial.
DPSIDEP notes the applicant’s performance feedbacks indicate comments by
his evaluator pertaining to “needed improvement” in some areas. His EPR
closed out and was signed on 13 Mar 07 and was probably made a matter of
record shortly thereafter. The quarterly nomination did not end until 31
Mar 07 and was announced in Apr 07. Although his nomination may have been
known, the winner was not; however, if he was a winner, this information
may be included on his next report
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 18 Dec
09, 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 time filed.
3. Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the
existence of error or injustice. We took careful 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 that the applicant has not been the victim of an error or
injustice. The applicant’s assertions regarding his quarterly award
nomination and his performance feedbacks are duly noted; however, we do
not find his assertions, in and by themselves, sufficiently persuasive in
this matter. Additionally, based on the information provided, we are not
persuaded that the contested report is not a true and accurate assessment
of his behavior and demonstrated potential during the specified time
period or that the ratings he received were in error or contrary to the
provisions of the governing instruction. Therefore, in the absence of
persuasive evidence to the contrary, we find 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 AFBCMR BC-2009-03289 in
Executive Session on 22 Jun 10, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:
Panel Chair
Member
Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 12 Aug 09, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Letter, HQ AFPC/DPSIDEP, dated 1 Dec 09.
Exhibit C. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 18 Dec 09.
Panel Chair
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-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 | 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-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 | 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 | CY2008 | BC-2007-03582
Evaluators must confirm they did not provide counseling or feedback, and that this directly resulted in an unfair evaluation. 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 14 Dec 07, for review and comment within 30 days. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES...
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-2009-03284
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 | 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 | 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.