Search Decisions

Decision Text

AF | BCMR | CY2010 | BC-2009-03289
Original file (BC-2009-03289.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

                            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

Similar Decisions

  • AF | BCMR | CY2009 | BC-2009-00137

    Original file (BC-2009-00137.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    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

    Original file (BC-2009-02670.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    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

    Original file (BC-2010-01284.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    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

    Original file (BC-2008-02144.DOC) Auto-classification: Denied

    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

    Original file (BC-2009-00541.txt) Auto-classification: Approved

    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 applicant’s EPR; or at least supported the applicant’s 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

    Original file (BC-2007-03582.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    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

    Original file (BC-2008-00763.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    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

    Original file (BC-2009-03284.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    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

    Original file (BC-2009-02730.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    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

    Original file (BC-2010-00686.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    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.