RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2010-03556
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
1. His enlisted performance report (EPR) rendered for the
period 16 May 08 through 15 May 09 be removed from his records.
2. He be given supplemental promotion consideration to the
grade of technical sergeant for the 2010E6 promotion cycle.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
The ratings he received in Block III, Performance Assessment,
Section 1, Primary/Additional Duties, and Section 5, Teamwork/Followership, are not accurate assessments of his
performance and is unfair because they lack significant
achievements and accomplishments during his evaluation period.
The number of days of supervision is incorrect.
He was not given an initial feedback session despite multiple
requests. However, he was given a five minute midterm feedback
session.
He received a Letter of Reprimand based on two other airmen
shipping cargo (priority one) to the wrong location.
In support of his request, the applicant provides copies of a DA
Form 638, Recommendation for Award; an AF Form 77, Letter of
Evaluation; an Army Achievement Medal certificate, personal
statements, an e-mail, his application to the Enlisted Reports
Appeals Board (ERAB), and 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 staff sergeant, with a date of rank and effective
date of 1 Dec 05.
A resume of the applicants EPRs follows:
CLOSE-OUT DATE OVERALL RATING
15 Aug 05 5
15 Aug 06 5
20 Jul 07 5
15 May 08 5
*15 May 09 4
26 Feb 10 5
*Contested Report
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
HQ AFPC/DPSID recommends denial. DPSID states the ERAB
determined there was insufficient evidence to void the contested
report; however, they were able to verify and administratively
correct the number of days of supervision.
DPSIP states an evaluation report is considered to represent the
rating chains best judgment at the time it is rendered. The
applicant has not substantiated the contested report was not
rendered in good faith by all evaluators based on knowledge
available at the time.
The complete DPSID evaluation is at Exhibit C.
HQ AFPC/DPSOE recommends denial and defers to the recommendation
of DPSID.
The complete DPSOE evaluation is at Exhibit D.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the
applicant on 14 Jan 11 for review and comment within 30 days
(Exhibit E). 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 opinions and
recommendations of the Air Force offices 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. 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-2010-03556 in Executive Session on 12 April 2011, under the
provisions of AFI 36-2603:
, Panel Chair
, Member
, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 22 Sep 10, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, HQ AFPC/DPSID, dated 9 Nov 10.
Exhibit D. Letter, HQ AFPC/DPSOE, dated 30 Nov 10.
Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 14 Jan 11.
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-2012-02557
_________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: His rater did not provide him with a mid-term feedback and there is evidence to support that a personality conflict existed between him and his rater. He asked for feedback and notified his chain-of-command that he was not provided feedback. In the absence of any evidence of unfair treatment or injustice, DPSID finds that the ratings were given fairly and IAW all Air Force policies and procedures.
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 | CY2010 | BC-2010-02256
Also, the EPR was written using the old EPR form. He does not believe there was a reason to deviate from the rating chain at that time and that the squadron just did not want him to see the report before it became a matter of record. ________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of material error or injustice; the application was denied without a personal...
AF | BCMR | CY2010 | BC-2010-01984
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2010-01984 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) for the reporting period ending 16 Nov 09 be removed from her records. At first it looked promising that her husband would transfer to McGhee-Tyson, TN, where she would be assigned as an instructor. In this...
AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-01820
The applicant filed an appeal through the Evaluation Report Appeals Board (ERAB) under the provisions of AFI 36-2401, Correcting Officer and Enlisted Evaluation Reports, however, the ERAB was not convinced the contested report was inaccurate or unjust and disapproved the applicants request. The complete DPSOE evaluation is at Exhibit D. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Copies of the Air Force evaluations were...
AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-00827
In support of his request, the applicant provides copies of his EPRs for periods ending 4 Apr 08 and 13 Jan 09, his appeal to the Evaluation Report Appeals Board (ERAB) and, a memorandum from his rater dated 6 May 08. Moreover, while Air Force policy requires formal feedback be documented, a direct correlation between information provided during the feedback session and the assessments on an evaluation report does not necessarily exist. The complete AFPC/DPSOE evaluation is at Exhibit...
AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-01393
The applicant’s complete response w/attachments, is at Exhibit F. ________________________________________________________________ disagrees with 5 of the Air Force offices of THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT: 1. The applicant’s contentions that her contested EPR does not accurately reflect a true account of her performance and enforcement of standards, that her rater gave her deceptive feedback, and that a rating markdown in Section III, block 2, of the EPR was in reprisal for her involvement in...
AF | BCMR | CY2010 | BC-2010-02279
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. 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. We took notice of the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of the...