RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2010-00237
INDEX CODE: 111.02
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
The applicants request is not clear; however, it appears he is
requesting that his Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) rendered
for the period 4 Feb 07 thru 3 Feb 08 be removed or changed to
reflect an overall 5 rating.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
He received an unfair and unjust rating without any
documentation and there was no feedback during or before
4 Feb 07 through 3 Feb 08.
During his three-year assignment there was only one documented
feedback and it was in 2006.
The contested EPR indicates another EPR was given on 3 Jul 07;
however, it was never given to him.
The Evaluations Reports Appeals Board (ERAB) denied his appeal
of the contested report.
In support of his request, the applicant provides copies of the
contested EPR and ERAB correspondence.
The applicant's complete submission, with attachments, is at
Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The applicant is presently serving in the grade of senior
airman.
The ERAB returned the applicants appeal for a reaccomplished
report showing feedback was not accomplished. However, after
30 days without a response, the appeal was closed. Further, the
commander noted, The member signed the EPR acknowledging he
received a mid-term feedback. Additionally, this is a strong
EPR for a SrA and I do not believe it requires amending.
The applicant acknowledged receipt of the contested report on
24 Apr 08, indicating all required feedback was accomplished
during the reporting period and upon receipt of the report.
A resume of the applicants EPRs follows:
CLOSEOUT DATE OVERALL RATING
15 Sep 03 5
15 Sep 04 4
3 Feb 05 5
3 Feb 06 3
3 Feb 07 5
*3 Feb 08 4
3 Feb 09 5
*Contested report.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
HQ AFPC/DPSIDEP recommends denial. DPSIDEP states there is no
evidence the contested report is inaccurate or unjust. However,
if the applicant can provide a statement from the rater that
feedback was not accomplished, they would recommend the feedback
date in Section V be removed and the comment, Feedback was not
accomplished IAW AFI 36-2406 be added.
The complete HQ AFPC/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 4 Jun 10 for review and comment within 30 days
(Exhibit D). As of this date, this office has not received a
response.
_________________________________________________________________
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 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 Docket Number
BC-2010-00237 in Executive Session on 3 August 2010, under the
provisions of AFI 36-2603:
Ms. XXXX, Panel Chair
Ms. XXXX, Member
Mr. XXXX, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 13 Jan 10, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, HQ AFPC/DPSIDEP, dated 9 Apr 10.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 4 Jun 10.
XXXX
Panel Chair
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 | 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-2010-00762
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 | 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 | 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 | 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 | 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-2010-04487
The complete DPSIDEP evaluation is at Exhibit D. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant contends there are multiple administrative errors and this is an injustice because of her medical condition. She was never given a feedback during this rating period. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did...
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.