RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2010-02279
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) rendered for the period
3 Mar 09 thru 2 Mar 10 be removed from his records.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
The EPR is unjust due to the improper management of supervising
officials. The contested report was written with only 123 days
of supervision.
His previous supervisor had 242 days of supervision prior to his
permanent change of station. A change of reporting official
(CRO) should have been accomplished prior to his departure to
allow a fair amount of time for him and his new supervisor.
In support of the request, the applicant provides personal
statements, an AF IMT Form 910, Enlisted Performance Report (AB
thru TSgt) (used as a Performance Feedback Worksheet), and a
copy of the contested report.
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 technical sergeant.
In accordance with AFI-36-2406, Officer and Enlisted Evaluation
Systems, Table 3.7, Note 6, the close-out date for EPRs is one
year from the previous EPR close-out date or when 120 calendar
days of supervision have passed.
A resume of the applicants EPRs follows:
CLOSE-OUT DATE OVERALL RATING
19 Jul 01 5
20 Jul 02 5
20 Jul 03 5
2 Mar 04 5
2 Mar 05 5
2 Mar 06 5
2 Mar 07 5
2 Mar 08 5
2 Mar 09 5
*2 Mar 10 4
*Contested Report.
Other relevant facts pertaining to this application are
contained in the evaluation prepared by HQ AFPC/DPSID, which is
at Exhibit C.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
HQ AFPC/DPSID recommends denial. DPSIDP states the EPR was
written in accordance with AFI 36-2406 and there is no evidence
the report is unjust or inaccurate. Further, the applicant has
not substantiated the contested report was not rendered in good
faith by all evaluators based on knowledge available at the
time.
DPSID further states the supervision between the applicant and
his first rater appears to have begun on 3 Mar 09. However, the
rater was deployed from 23 Jan 09 through 30 Jul 09, deducting
150 days of supervision. When the rater returned from his
deployment, he was selected for an assignment, but was also
scheduled to attend Squadron Officer School (SOS). Prior to the
officer leaving for SOS, there were only 45 days of supervision.
The rater went to SOS on or about 14 Sep 09 through 16 Oct 09,
deducting another 33 days of supervision.
In accordance with AFI 36-2406, Table 3.2, Note 6a, deduct all
periods of 30 or more consecutive calendar days during which the
ratee did not perform normal duties under the raters
supervision because either the rater or the ratee was on
temporary duty, on leave, in a patient status, in classroom
training (such as attending PME at home station), absent without
leave, dropped from the rolls, or in confinement. With the days
deducted from when supervision began, there were only 94 days of
supervision, less than the required 120 days of supervision.
However, a CRO was accomplished on 30 Oct 09 to the rater who
signed his evaluation. From the time the new rater was assigned
until the EPR close-out on 2 Mar 10 there were 124 days of
supervision, making the evaluation an accurate report in
accordance with AFI 36-2406.
The applicant did not file an appeal through the Evaluation
Reports Appeals Board (ERAB) under the provisions of
AFI 36-2401, Correcting Officer and Enlisted Evaluation Reports;
however, 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 8 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. 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-2010-02279 in Executive Session on 5 January 2011, under the
provisions of AFI 36-2603:
, Panel Chair
, Member
, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 24 May 10, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, HQ AFPC/DPSID, dated 25 Aug 10.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 8 Oct 10.
Panel Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-02070
DPSID states the applicant did file an appeal through the Evaluation Report Appeals Board (ERAB) under the provisions of Air Force Instruction (AFI) 36-2401, Correcting Officer and Enlisted Evaluation Reports; however, the ERAB was not convinced the contested report was inaccurate or unjust. In the applicants case, the feedback date is clearly annotated on the form, and the applicant has not proved, through his submitted evidence that the feedback date as recorded did not in fact take...
AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-04746
The first time the contested report was used in the promotion process was cycle 11E6. The complete AFPC/DPSID evaluation is at Exhibit D. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: On 23 Mar 2012, copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant for review and comment within 30 days. ________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: The pertinent military records...
AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-02734
The action was not a change of rater, but removal of rater and the feedback date as recorded was valid for use in the contested EPR. The ERAB administratively corrected the EPR by adding the rater was removed from the rating chain effective 18 November 2010. The applicant states the number of supervision days as reflected (365) is inaccurate as his new rater did not assume rating duties until 18 November 2010. He does not provide any supporting evidence to support that any unreliable...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC-2013-01902
b. AFPC/DPSIDs advisory opinion states The applicant believes that after subtraction of his TDY to the NCO Academy and the time he was loaned out to another section, the rater on the contested evaluation did not obtain the minimum required supervision of 120 days. In his original application, there is substantial evidence that shows the Chief did not have enough days of supervision to close out a report on him. The Chief sent an email to him on 21 Sep 09 stating he was assigned as his...
AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 00759
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: According to AFI 36-2401, Correcting Officer and Enlisted Evaluation Reports, and AFI 36-2406, Officer and Enlisted Evaluation Systems; his rater did not have 120 days of supervision to write an annual report. The applicants EPR profile is listed below: Period Ending Overall Evaluation 15 Apr 12 5 *15 Apr 13 4 15 Apr 14 4 30 Nov 14 5 *Contested Report The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the memorandum prepared by the Air...
AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-03198
The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application extracted from the applicants military personnel records are contained in the letter prepared by the appropriate Air Force office of primary responsibility (Exhibit B). The applicant has failed to provide any information/support from the rating chain of record on the contested EPR. As a result of this finding, AFPC/DPSIDEP has, in accordance with AFI 36-2406, Officer and Enlisted Evaluation Systems, administratively corrected the...
AF | BCMR | CY2009 | BC-2008-03399
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2008-03399 INDEX CODE: 111.02 XXXXXXX COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ___________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) closing 8 Sep 06 be voided and removed from his record. HQ AFPC/DPPPEP’s complete evaluation is at Exhibit...
AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2011-04279
DPSID states the applicant did not file an appeal through the Evaluation Reports Appeal Board’s (ERAB) under the provisions of AFI 36-240l, Correcting Officer and Enlisted Evaluation Reports. DPSID states, that in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, the rater did follow all applicable policies and procedures in the preparation and completion of the contested evaluation. It appears the report was accomplished in direct accordance with applicable Air 4 Force instructions.
AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC 2012 05708
On 23 Mar 2010, the applicant failed his FA with a score of 72.00. The applicant has failed to provide any information from all the rating officials on the contested report. The complete DPSID evaluation is at Exhibit C. _______________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The EPR did not include his performance for the entire rating period.
AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-00540
_________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: The referral report he received was unjustly rendered as a “3” in violation of numerous requirements of Air Force Instruction (AFI) 36-2406, Officer and Enlisted Evaluation Systems. The contested report should not have been a referral report. A complete copy of the AFPC/DPSIM evaluation is at Exhibit C. AFPC/DPSID recommends denial of the applicant’s request to remove the contested EPR from his...