RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2010-03630
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His AF Form 910, Enlisted Performance Report (AB through TSgt)
(EPR), rendered for the period 16 Mar 09 through 15 Mar 10 be
replaced.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
The contested report on file in his master personnel record was
not the final version.
In support of his request, the applicant provides copies of the
contested report, a revised AF Form 910, and two letters of
support.
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.
On 27 Aug 09, the applicant received an Article 15, Uniform Code
of Military Justice Nonjudicial Punishment, for using his
Government Travel Card for unauthorized purposes. His
punishment consisted of a forfeiture of $1,063 pay for two
months, seven days of extra duty, and a reprimand.
A resume of the applicants EPRs follows:
CLOSEOUT DATE OVERALL RATING
15 Oct 05 3
15 Oct 06 5
30 Jun 07 5
15 Mar 08 5
15 Mar 09 5
*15 Mar 10 4
*Contested report.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
HQ AFPC/DPSIDEP recommends denial. DPSIDEP states there is no
evidence of an error or injustice and the applicant has failed
to provide any information or support from the original rater on
the contested report. Further, Air Force policy states an
evaluation report is accurate as written when it becomes a
matter of record and is considered to represent the rating
chains best judgment at the time a report is rendered. Once a
report is accepted for file, only strong evidence to the
contrary warrants correction or removal from an individuals
record. To effectively challenge an EPR, it is necessary to
hear from all the members of the rating chainnot only for
support, but also for clarification or explanation. Moreover,
there is no letter stating that the Article 15 was set aside,
mitigated, etc. It appears the incident still took place and
the original rater consciously thought that it was grave enough
to report it on the subject report.
The applicant filed an appeal through the Evaluation Reports
Appeals Board (ERAB); however, the ERAB was not convinced the
contested report was unjust or wrong and denied the requested
relief.
The complete HQ AFPC/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 17 Dec 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 an error or injustice. We took
careful 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. We
do not find his assertions, in and by themselves, sufficiently
persuasive in this matter. Additionally, we are not persuaded
by the evidence provided that the contested report is not a true
and accurate assessment of his demonstrated potential during the
specified time period. In the absence of persuasive 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-2010-03630 in Executive Session on 24 February 2011, under
the provisions of AFI 36-2603:
, Panel Chair
, Member
, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 1 Sep 10, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, HQ AFPC/DPSIDEP, dated 12 Nov 10.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 17 Dec 10.
Panel Chair
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-2009-03289
In support of his request, the applicant submits copies of the contested EPR, his quarterly award nomination letter, and his performance feedback worksheets. The following is a resume of his performance reports: Close-Out Date Overall Rating 25 May 01 5 25 May 02 5 9 Dec 02 5 27 May 03 5 13 Mar 04 5 13 Mar 05 5 13 Mar 06 5 +13 Mar 07 4 13 Mar 08 5 PERFORMANCE REPORTS CONTINUED: 13 Mar 09 5 + Contested Report The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application, extracted from the...
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...
AF | BCMR | CY2010 | BC-2009-02670
While Air Force policy requires performance feedback for personnel, a direct correlation between the information provided during a feedback session, and the assessment on evaluation reports does not necessarily exist. As of this date, this office has received no response (Exhibit C). 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...
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-2010-00686
DPSIDEP states the applicant’s request for relief was denied by the Evaluation Reports Appeals Board (ERAB). The complete DPSIDEP evaluation is at Exhibit B. The applicant asserts that his supervisor included comments in his EPR that occurred outside of the rating period and that he was not provided initial or midterm feedback; however, he has not provided evidence which substantiates his claim.
AF | BCMR | CY2010 | BC-2009-02480
DPSIDEP states the Air Force does not require the designated rater to be the ratee’s immediate supervisor. DPSIDEP notes the statement provided by the applicant was written by a member of the Air National Guard not assigned to his squadron. Exhibit C. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 26 Feb 10.
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 | 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 | 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...