RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2010-04000
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His AF Form 910, Enlisted Performance Report (AB thru TSgt),
rendered for the period 26 Oct 06 through 25 Oct 07, be removed
from his records.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
His rater signed the EPR notice stating the Record of Counseling
(ROC) was in his Personnel Information File (PIF) when it was
not. The ROC was never made part of his record and should not
have been used when rating his performance for the contested
period.
In support of his request, the applicant provides a copies of
documents extracted from his military personnel records.
The applicants complete submission, with attachments, is at
Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The applicant is currently serving on active duty in the grade of
Staff Sergeant (SSgt).
The applicants EPR profile as a SSgt is listed below:
PERIOD ENDING OVERALL EVALUATION
1 Jul 10 4
**9 Nov 09 3
25 Dec 08 4
*25 Oct 07 3
*Contested Report
** Referral Report
The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are
contained in the letter prepared by the appropriate office of the
Air Force which is at Exhibit C.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
AFPC/DPSID recommends denial. The applicant did not file an
appeal through the Evaluation Reports Appeals Board (ERAB);
however, the ERAB reviewed this application and was not convinced
the contested report was inaccurate or unjust. AFPC/DPSIDEP
states that while the ROC may not have been placed in the
applicants PIF, the action still took place during the rating
period. AFI 36-2406, Officer and Enlisted Evaluation Systems,
states that evaluators are strongly encouraged to comment on
discreditable misconduct or when adverse actions, such as Letters
of Reprimand, Admonishment, or Counseling, or placement on the
Control Roster, have been taken. Furthermore, the applicant was
provided the opportunity to provide a rebuttal to the action, but
failed to do so. More importantly, the rater never commented on
the LOC in the contested EPR; consequently, it is safe to assume
the rater may not have even considered the ROC incidence as there
were no signs to suggest the LOC may have affected the final
rating.
An evaluation report is considered to represent the rating
chains best judgment at the time it is rendered. Furthermore,
once a report is accepted for file, only strong evidence to the
contrary warrants correction or removal from an individuals
record. The burden of proof is on the applicant and he has not
provided any evidence to show the contested report was unjust or
inaccurate.
The complete 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 25 May 11, for review and comment within 30 days. As of this
date, no response has been received by this office.
_________________________________________________________________
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
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 the evidence presented did not
demonstrate the existence of material error or injustice; the
application was denied without a personal appearance; and 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-2010-04000 in Executive Session on 16 Aug 11, under the
provisions of AFI 36-2603:
, Panel Chair
, Member
, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 22 Oct 10, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicants Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPSID, dated 21 Feb 11.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 25 Mar 11.
Panel Chair
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 | 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 | 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-2012-03800
The applicant failed to provide any information or support from the rating chain of record on the contested report. The complete DPSID evaluation is at Exhibit D. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on 3 May 2013 for review and comment within 30 days (Exhibit D). Additionally, we note AFPC/DPSIMs recommendation to remove the 6 May 2011 Letter...
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 | CY2011 | BC-2010-02526
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2010-02526 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 1. Applicant’s EPR profile is listed below: PERIOD ENDING OVERALL EVALUATION *15 May 10 4 15 May 09 5 15 May 08 5 15 May 07 5 15 May 06 5 15 May 05 5 *Referral Report The applicant did not file an appeal with the Evaluation Report Appeals Board...
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-2010-04557
The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the letter prepared by the appropriate office of the Air Force, which is attached at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSID recommends denial of the applicants request to void the contested report. The complete AFPC/DPSID evaluation is at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2012 05342
The Evaluation Report Appeals Board (ERAB) directed that his EPR closing 29 Jun 06 be replaced; however, he should have been provided supplemental promotion consideration for promotion cycles 07E8 and 08E8. Regarding the applicants contention his EPR covering the period 1 Apr 05 through 30 Sep 06, which is only a matter of record because he requested that it replace another report, was in error because it was not signed by his additional rater at the time in violation of AFI 36-2406, the...
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...