RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2010-01710
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
___________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) for the period ending
1 August 2009 be declared void and removed from his record.
___________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
He believes he was singled out by various levels of leadership and
forced to retake a physical fitness assessment 8 days after
attaining a passing score. In addition, he is being unfairly rated
under the training portion of his EPR due to an isolated incident
for which he received a Letter of Reprimand (LOR); however, he does
not believe since the EPR covers an entire year of supervision that
the LOR should be considered when rating him. He appealed to the
Enlisted Reports Appeals Board (ERAB); however, his request was
denied.
In support of his request, the applicant provides a copy of the
contested report, a copy of the referral documentation w/atchs,
copies of letters of support, a copy of his upgrade training
paperwork, and a copy of his AF Form 422, Notification of Air Force
Members Qualification Status.
His complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.
___________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The applicant is currently serving on active duty in the grade of
technical sergeant (E-6).
Additional relevant facts pertaining to this application, extracted
from the applicants military records, are contained in the letters
prepared by the appropriate offices of the Air Force. Accordingly,
there is no need to recite these facts in this Record of
Proceedings.
___________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
AFPC/DPSIDEP recommends denial. DPSIDEP states that although the
applicant had a passing fitness score on 21 Jul 09, he was directed
to retest 8 days later. The applicant fails to point out the
reason he was required to retest was due to his leadership feeling
there were some abnormal circumstances with the test results. The
applicant could have been given a 59 day extension to allow him
another opportunity to test; however, the unit leadership did not
feel this course of action was warranted as he passed the first
test. As for the applicants assertions that the training portion
of his EPR focused on an isolated incident of not meeting
instructor-directed academic training timelines for which he
received an LOR, according to the governing instructions,
evaluators are strongly encouraged to comment in performance
reports on misconduct or when adverse actions such as Article 15s
are administered. Additionally, evaluators are to consider the
entire reporting period not just information as of the closeout
date. The applicant has not shown a clear error or injustice.
The DPSIDEP complete evaluation is at Exhibit B.
HQ USAF/A1PP recommends denial. A1PP states the applicants EPR is
valid and should not be removed due to him receiving a valid failed
fitness assessment on 29 Jul 09 and an LOR on 9 Feb 09. A1PP also
recommends the invalid fitness assessment score dated 21 Jul 09 be
removed from the Air Force Fitness Management System (AFFMS).
The HQ USAF/A1PP complete evaluation is at Exhibit C.
AFPC/DPSIMC recommends denial. DPSIMC states the applicant
received an LOR from his flight superintendent for failing to
complete training. He claims he was unjustly rated due to an
isolated incident for which he received an LOR. The LOR was
accomplished IAW governing regulations. Therefore, DPSIMC cannot
support the applicants request to remove his EPR from his records.
The DPSIMC complete evaluation is at Exhibit D.
___________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the
applicant on 9 Dec 10 for review and comment within 30 days. 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 error or injustice. After reviewing
all of the evidence provided, we are not persuaded that the
contested report is an inaccurate depiction of the applicants
performance and demonstrated potential for the period in question;
therefore, we agree with the opinions and recommendations of the
Air Force offices of primary responsibility and adopt their
rationale as the basis for our conclusion that 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-2010-01710 in Executive Session on 26 Jan 11, under the
provisions of AFI 36-2603:
, Panel Chair
, Member
, Member
The following documentary evidence for Docket Number BC-2010-01710
was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 21 Jan 10, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Letter, AFPC/DPSIDEP, dated 5 Jul 10.
Exhibit C. Letter, HQ USAF/A1PP, dated 7 Sep 10.
Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/DPSIMC, dated 2 Jun 10.
Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 9 Dec 10.
Panel Chair
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 | 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 | CY2011 | BC-2011-01398
The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the letters prepared by the Air Force offices of primary responsibility, which are attached at Exhibits C and D. ________________________________________________________________ _ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSID recommends denial of the applicants request to change or remove her EPR. While it appears the applicant performed [her duties] extremely well during the reporting period, the failed fitness...
AF | BCMR | CY2009 | BC-2009-01091
The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application, extracted from the applicant's military records, are contained in the letter prepared by the appropriate offices of the Air Force. Although, he had a decreased measurement of 2.5 inches 13 days after the 15 May 08 measurement, this does not prove the original measurement was inaccurate. We took notice of the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of the case; however, we agree with the opinion and...
AF | BCMR | CY2009 | BC 2009 01091
The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application, extracted from the applicant's military records, are contained in the letter prepared by the appropriate offices of the Air Force. Although, he had a decreased measurement of 2.5 inches 13 days after the 15 May 08 measurement, this does not prove the original measurement was inaccurate. We took notice of the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of the case; however, we agree with the opinion and...
AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-03754
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2011-03754 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 1. The complete HQ USAF/A1PP evaluation is at Exhibit C. AFPC/DPSID recommends voiding the three contested EPRs,contingent upon the Board approving the applicants request to have his FA test results removed from his records. e. His effective date...
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-2009-03284
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 | CY2011 | BC-2011-02279
The complete A1PP evaluation is at Exhibit B. AFPC/DPSOE states, should the Board remove the three fitness failures from the applicants record, DPSOE recommends revoking the demotion orders and restoring the applicants rank to staff sergeant. The complete DPSOE evaluation is at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant states at this time he does not have any additional evidence in support of his...
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. ...