RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2010-01586
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
__________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) rendered for the period
2 Jan 09 through 1 Jan 10, Section III, Block 2, Performance
Assessment, Standards, Conduct, Character & Military Bearing, be
changed to match the wording on his Letter of Reprimand (LOR),
dated 19 Jun 09 or be declared void.
__________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
The statement contained in the contested report does not match
the wording in the LOR.
He was not given any documentation supporting the statement in
the contested report.
His conduct has not been perfect and he understands he does not
deserve a firewall 5 EPR; however, it is an injustice to
receive a referral EPR considering all the facts and
circumstances.
In support of his request, the applicant provides copies of
personal statements, the stated LOR, Unfavorable Information File
Action, and the contested EPR.
The applicant's complete submission, with attachments, is at
Exhibit A.
__________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The applicant is presently serving in the Regular Air Force in
the grade of senior airman.
A resume of the applicants EPRs follows:
CLOSEOUT DATE OVERALL RATING
1 Jan 08 5
1 Jan 09 4
*1 Jan 10 3
*Contested report.
__________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
HQ AFPC/DPSID recommends partial relief by changing Section III,
Block 2 of the contested EPR from, Letter of Reprimand/Control
Roster action for falsifying official records as Squadron
Physical Training Leader to read Letter of Reprimand/Control
Roster action for dereliction of duties as a Squadron Physical
Training Leader rather than voiding the contested report. It is
recommended the contested EPR be corrected to reflect the intent
from which the LOR was given versus voiding the entire report.
DPSID states the applicant did file an appeal through the
Evaluation Reports Appeals Board (ERAB), which was denied.
Additionally, the ERAB reviewed this application and recommends
denial.
The complete HQ AFPC/DPSID 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 29 Oct 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. Sufficient relevant evidence has been presented to
demonstrate the existence of error or injustice warranting
partial relief. It appears the applicant is only requesting that
a statement be changed in the referral EPR he received, or in the
alternative, the EPR be voided. However, we note that based on
the statement attached to his application that if the EPR is not
voided, he also requests the EPR not be referred and that the
markings reflected in Section III and V be reconsidered. The Air
Force office of primary responsibility (OPR) has determined the
contested statement does not accurately reflect the reason the
applicant was reprimanded. As such, they recommend the EPR be
amended to properly match the wording in the Letter of Reprimand
(LOR). We agree with their recommendation. However, we are not
persuaded by the applicants arguments the EPR should not be
referred or the markings be changed. As noted by the OPR, the
applicant is not contesting he should not have received the LOR,
rather, that the decisions to make the report a referral report
and the markings he received are not consistent with his overall
performance during the rating period. Further, the applicant has
not provided any support from his rating chain in support of his
appeal. He also has not provided sufficient evidence to show
that, with the exception of the erroneous statement, the EPR as
written is not an accurate reflection of his performance during
the period. Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the
contrary, we find no basis to recommend granting any relief
beyond that recommended 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 Enlisted
Performance Report (AB through TSgt), AF Form 910, rendered for
the period 2 January 2009 through 1 January 2010, be amended in
Section III, Performance Assessment, Block 2, to read Letter of
Reprimand/Control Roster action for dereliction of duties as Sq
Physical Tng Leader rather than Letter of Reprimand/Control
Roster action for falsifying official records as Sq Physical Tng
Leader.
__________________________________________________________________
The following members of the Board considered Docket Number BC-
2010-01586 in Executive Session on 3 February 2011, 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 for Docket Number
BC-2010-01586:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 21 Apr 10, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, HQ AFPC/DPSID, dated 28 Sep 10.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 29 Oct 10.
XXXX
Panel Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2010 | BC-2010-03495
Additional relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the letters prepared by the appropriate offices of the Air Force. AFPC/DPSOE complete evaluation is at Exhibit E. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on 1 Jun 11 for review and comment within 30 days. We took notice of the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits...
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 | CY2013 | BC 2013 05449
Her Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) for the period ending 21 Mar 12 be removed from her record. Her EPR for the period ending 2 Feb 13 be removed from her record. APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: The EPR for the period ending 21 Mar 12 includes a negative comment stating she received a Letter of Reprimand (LOR); however this LOR is not in her Personal Information File (PIF) nor is there any evidence of it in her records.
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC-2012-02221
His Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) with the close-out date of 19 August 2009 be voided and removed from his records. He believes that his EPR was used to cancel his assignment and therefore, it should be voided and removed from his records. With regard to assignment been may have 5 the applicant’s placement onto the Control Roster, as a result of the commander directed inquiry which revealed the applicant’s unprofessional relationship, the commander issued an LOR with control roster action.
AF | BCMR | CY2010 | BC-2010-01468
His medals were denied due to the rating on the contested report. The applicants complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. After the investigation, the commander issued the applicant an LOR for his actions taken against his spouse.
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC-2013-01918
________________________________________________________________ _ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSID recommends denial to remove the contested report from the applicants records. The DPSID complete evaluation is at Exhibit C. AFPC/DPSID recommends denial of the AFGCM. The DPSID complete evaluation is at Exhibit D. ________________________________________________________________ _ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: On 15 October 2013, a copy of the Air Force evaluation...
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 00-02173 INDEX CODE: 111.02 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) rendered for the period 30 Aug 98 through 29 Aug 99 be declared void and removed from his records. Based on the reason(s) for the referral EPR, the applicant’s commander could very well have...
AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-03501
The EPR does not reflect the correct Air Force Specialty Code (AFSC). The completed DPSOE evaluation is at Exhibit G. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant, through counsel, submits a 7-page statement and a 1-page statement regarding the Air Force advisories. Counsel alleges the actions taken by the commander for the applicants DUI were appropriate; however, the additional actions against the applicant...
AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 00308
The ERAB denied his request indicating he did not provide sufficient evidence to support his allegations for removal of the contested report. While current Air Force policy requires performance feedback for personnel, a direct correlation between information provided during feedback sessions and the assessments on evaluation reports does not necessarily exist. Therefore, while the applicant would argue that it would be appropriate to declare the report void and remove it from his records,...
AF | BCMR | CY2010 | BC-2010-01776
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBERS: BC-2010-01776 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His Officer Performance Report (OPR) rendered for the period 16 June 2004 through 15 June 2005 be removed from his record. Although the LOR memorandum itself was done correctly, the applicant states he did not receive a UIF. As of this date, this...