RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2010-00362
INDEX CODE: 111.02
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His Air Force Form 911, Enlisted Performance Report (MSgt thru
CMSgt), rendered for the period 2 March 2008 through 1 March
2009, be corrected to reflect the appropriate Duty Title in
Section II, Block #1; and, the appropriate Key Duties, Tasks and
Responsibilities in Block #3.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
The contested Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) did not reflect
the correct duty title and key duties of his position at the time
the EPR was closed.
In support of his request, the applicant provides copies of the
contested EPR, a Personnel Data Worksheet, and Duty History.
The applicants complete submission, with attachments, is at
Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The applicant is currently serving in the Regular Air Force in
the rank of master sergeant (E-7) with a date of rank of 1 June
2006.
The following is a resume of the applicants EPR profile:
PERIOD ENDING PROMOTION RECOMMENDATION
31 Oct 00 5
7 Sep 01 5
7 Oct 02 5
7 Oct 03 5
7 Oct 04 5
1 Aug 05 5
1 Aug 06 5
1 Mar 07 5
1 Mar 08 5
1 Mar 09* 5
* Contested report
The remaining relevant facts, extracted from the applicants
service records, are contained in the advisory opinion prepared
by the Air Force office of primary responsibility at Exhibit B.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
AFPC/DPSIDEP recommends denial. DPSIDEP states the applicant did
not file an appeal through the Evaluation Reports Appeal Board
(ERAB) under the provisions of Air Force Instruction (AFI) 36-
2401, Correcting Officer and Enlisted Evaluation Reports;
however, the ERAB reviewed this appeal and recommends denial.
DPSIDEP indicates the applicant provided a unit generated
Personnel Data Worksheet, dated 19 October 2009, requesting his
duty title be changed effective 1 December 2008. However, it was
not initiated and/or approved by anyone in his rating chain as of
the 1 March 2009 close-out date of the contested report. In
addition, the applicant did not provide a reaccomplished report
or any supporting documentation from the evaluators who signed
the contested report explaining how they were hindered from
rendering a fair and accurate assessment of the applicants
performance prior to the report being made a matter of record.
The applicant provided no explanation as to why he did not
address the alleged inaccurate duty title and key duties prior to
the EPR becoming a matter of record when he reviewed and signed
the report on 18 March 2009.
DPSIDEP states they are not convinced the contested report is
inaccurate or unjust and do not support the applicants request.
The complete AFPC/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 24 March 2010 for review and response within 30 days (Exhibit
C). As of this date, this office has received no 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 an error or an 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 AFBCMR Docket
Number BC-2010-00362 in Executive Session on 30 September 2010,
under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX, Panel Chair
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX, Member
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered for AFBCMR
Docket Number BC-2010-00362:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 25 Oct 09, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Letter, AFPC/DPSIDEP, dated 10 Mar 10.
Exhibit C. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 24 Mar 10.
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
Panel Chair
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-2010-03057
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2010-03057 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) rendered for the period 2 July 2009 through 15 April 2010 be voided and removed from her records. The following is a resume of the applicants EPR profile: PERIOD ENDING PROMOTION RECOMMENDATION 20 Dec 01 (SrA)...
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-2010-01327
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 | CY2008 | BC-2007-02545
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2007-02545 INDEX CODE: 110.02 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His enlisted performance report (EPR) with a close-out date of 10 Nov 04 be upgraded or removed from his records. In support of his request, the applicant provided statements in his own behalf, a chronological record of events,...
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-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...
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-2010-00919
DPSIDEP states the applicant filed an appeal through the Evaluation Reports Appeal Board (ERAB) under the provisions of Air Force Instruction 36-2401, Correcting Officer and Enlisted Evaluation Reports. Should the Board grant the applicants request to remove the referral report, it could direct the promotion to staff sergeant be reinstated with a date of rank and effective date of 1 December 2009. We took notice of the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of the case;...
AF | BCMR | CY2010 | BC-2010-00155
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. 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. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE...