RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2010-00155
INDEX CODE: 111.05
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His AF Form 910, Enlisted Performance Report (EPR), rendered for
the period 2 June 2008 through 1 June 2009, be removed from his
records.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
He was falsely accused of not processing Personnel Reliability
Program (PRP) certifications correctly. He provided the
necessary documentation in his rebuttal to his commander. After
the review of his rebuttal, the commander determined the mistakes
were clearly not his fault as stated in his EPR.
The assignment technician provided PCS orders to a customer
before he had a chance to complete the administrative
certification process. The EPR also stated he certified another
customer with an expired security clearance; however, the
evidence of record shows it had not expired. His
supervisor/section chief reviewed and signed off on the PRP
portion as being complete and accurate. Lastly, his supervisor
and the assignment technician received Letters of Reprimand for
their involvement in the PRP program; however, they did not
receive referral EPRs.
In support of his request, the applicant provides copies of his
EPR, a PRP Processing Worksheet, an email, and AF Form 899, Request and Authorization for Permanent Change of Station
Military.
The applicant's complete submission, with attachments, is at
Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The applicant is currently serving on active duty Air Force in
the grade of technical sergeant.
On 2 August 2009, the applicant was issued a referral EPR because
of discrepancies found in the PRP and Formal Training Program he
managed. The applicant acknowledged receipt of the letter of
notification for the referral EPR and submitted comments on his
own behalf.
The applicants performance profile as a technical sergeant:
PERIOD ENDING OVERALL RATING
1 Jun 06 5
1 Jun 07 4
1 Jun 08 5
* 1 Jun 09 4
* Contested Report.
The applicant did not file an appeal through the Evaluation
Reports Appeals Board (ERAB) under the provisions of AFI 36-2401, Officer and Enlisted Evaluation Systems.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
HQ AFPC/DPSIDEP recommends denial. DPSIDEP states the EPR was
not a referral report and it was processed in accordance with AFI
36-2401, Table 3.2, Rule 20, Disagreements, which states
evaluators, should discuss disagreements when preparing reports.
Prior evaluators are first given an opportunity to change the
evaluation; however, they will not change their evaluation just
to satisfy the evaluator who disagrees. If, after discussion,
the disagreement remains, the disagreeing evaluator marks the
nonconcur block, initials the block deemed more appropriate, and
comments on each item in disagreement. The EPR was processed IAW
AF policy and there is no evidence of a clear injustice
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 2 April 2010 for review and comment within 30 days. As of
this date, a response has not been received (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. Sufficient relevant evidence has been presented to
demonstrate the existence of an injustice warranting removal of
the applicants contested performance report. After a thorough
review of the evidence presented, we believe sufficient evidence
has been presented concerning the fairness of the contested
report and that the report is not an accurate reflection of his
performance during the time period in question. In this regard,
we note that during the referral EPR process, the commander found
the applicant had not failed to perform his duties as alleged by
the rater. Subsequently, the commander marked the nonconcur
block, initialed the block he deemed more appropriate and marked
the overall performance assessment block in section V with an
Above Average (4) rating. As a result of these actions the
report was no longer a referral. While we note the commander
correctly applied the EPR referral procedures, the stigma of the
referral report still remains in the applicants records.
Accordingly, we recommend his records be corrected to the extent
set forth below.
____________________________________________________________
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT:
The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force
relating to APPLICANT be corrected to show that the AF Form 910, Enlisted Performance Report (AB thru TSGT), rendered for the
period 2 June 2008 through 1 June 2009 be declared void and
removed from her records.
_________________________________________________________________
The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket
Number BC-2010-00155 in Executive Session on 28 September 2010
under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:
Panel Chair
Member
Member
All members voted to correct the records, as recommended. The
following documentary evidence was considered in connection with
AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2010-00155:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 6 Jan 10, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Letter, AFPC/DPSIDEP, 4 Mar 10.
Exhibit C. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 2 Apr 10.
Panel ChairA complete copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit B. A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation, with attachment, is attached at Exhibit C. APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Applicant reviewed the Air Force evaluations and provided a two-page response with a copy of her most recent EPR closing 15 Feb 99. Initially when applicant appealed the contested report under the provisions of AFI 36-2401, she asserted that the report did not accurately reflect her...
AF | BCMR | CY2009 | BC-2008-01852
The report was marked down in one area, “How well does ratee comply with standards?” Her EPR profile reflects the following: PERIOD ENDING EVALUATION OF POTENTIAL 15 Jan 03 5 15 Jan 04 5 Her EPR profile continues: PERIOD ENDING EVALUATION OF POTENTIAL 15 Jan 05 5 16 Jul 05 5 16 Jul 06 5 **16 Jul 07 4 ** Contested report _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSIDEP recommends denial and states in part, that since the applicant did not...
AF | BCMR | CY2010 | BC-2010-00139
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 their rationale as the basis for our conclusion the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice. We note the applicant has not provided sufficient evidence to substantiate that he was exempt from the PT during the periods of the referral EPRs. ...
In his submissions to the Evaluation Reports Appeal Board (ERAB), he illustrated his insufficient training, his attempts to get training, and the different conversations he had with the rater concerning his duty performance and accomplished workload tasks. The applicant contends he did not receive the 28 Jun 96 feedback session as indicated on his 16 Nov 96 EPR; however, he did not provide anything from his evaluator to support his allegation. Especially in view of the fact that the report...
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 | CY2002 | BC-2002-02982
On 1 December 1997, the applicant submitted an appeal to the Evaluation Reports Appeal Board (ERAB) requesting her EPR for the period 11 January 1999 through 15 September 1999 be upgraded from an overall “4” to an overall “5.” On 21 September 2000, the ERAB notified the applicant’s military personnel office that her appeal was considered and denied. The AFPC/DPPPWB evaluation is at Exhibit D. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-02982
On 1 December 1997, the applicant submitted an appeal to the Evaluation Reports Appeal Board (ERAB) requesting her EPR for the period 11 January 1999 through 15 September 1999 be upgraded from an overall “4” to an overall “5.” On 21 September 2000, the ERAB notified the applicant’s military personnel office that her appeal was considered and denied. The AFPC/DPPPWB evaluation is at Exhibit D. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE...
AF | BCMR | CY2009 | BC-2009-00706
Additionally, unit commanders may request an extension of the close-out date, when an individual is required to fitness test immediately preceding the EPR close-out date and fails to meet fitness standards. It appears the applicant contends that he was injured during the 22 Sep 08 PT test, and the test should be invalidated and the EPR closing on 9 Oct 08 should be declared void and removed from his records. Further, the Board is not persuaded the EPR should be voided, since he failed the...
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...
Applicant’s complete submission is attached at Exhibit A. On 30 Sep 99, applicant’s supervisor did not recommend her for reenlistment due to the referral EPR. A complete copy of the their evaluation, with attachments, is attached at Exhibit D. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Applicant reviewed the Air Force evaluations and provided a five-page letter responding to the advisory opinions.