RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2010-04754
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
The AF Form 77, Letter of Evaluation (LOE), rendered for the
period 11 Jul 06 through 10 Jul 07, be removed from his records
and replaced with a reaccomplsihed AF Form 910, Enlisted
Performance Report (EPR).
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
The Evaluation Reports Appeals Board (ERAB) returned a decision
that stated in part it was not convinced the original report was
unjust or wrong. Shortly after this decision, the ERAB voided
the report and replaced it with a nearly blank AF Form 77. The
ERABs action to void the original report was contradictory to
its own decision. This decision did not correct nor provide
relief from an unjust report, but instead put his career at a
disadvantage.
In support of his appeal, the applicant provides a copy of the
reaccomplished EPR and letters of support from his rater and
additional rater.
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
3 Jan 03 4
10 Jul 03 4
10 Jul 04 5
10 Jul 05 4
10 Jul 06 4
PERIOD ENDING OVERALL EVALUATION
10 Jul 07 LOE
15 Apr 08 4
15 Apr 09 5
15 Apr 10 5
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/DPSIDEP recommends denial. AFPC/DPSID notes the applicant
appealed to the ERAB to remove his performance report for the
period ending 10 Jul 07 and replace it with a reaccomplished
report. The ERAB reviewed the applicants request and based on
the information supplied, determined the original report was
invalid due to there were not being enough days of supervision.
Since the original report was invalid and was already a matter of
record, the reaccomplished report could not be accepted for
filing in the records. The ERAB filed an LOE to rectify the
error in accordance with AF policy.
Although, the applicant believes his career was put at a
disadvantage because his record is now missing valuable
documentation related to his deployment and Army Commendation
Medal,his Army Commendation Medal is part of his permanent record
and prior events are permitted to be used in subsequent reports
since the mentioned events can add significantly to an evaluation
report and have not been previously reflected in past performance
reports. Furthermore, the applicant has been provided
considerable relief since the original report was rated a 4 and
the removal of that rating has been deleted from the system; he
now will receive more promotion points for the approved Dec In-
system supplemental promotion he requested.
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 15 Apr 11 for review and comment within 30 days. As of this
date, no response has been received by this office (Exhibit D).
_________________________________________________________________
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 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-2010-04754 in Executive Session on 15 Sep 11, under the
provisions of AFI 36-2603:
, Panel Chair
, Member
, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 23 Dec 10, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicants Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPSID, dated 26 Mar 11.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 15 Apr 11.
Panel Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-03956
The Evaluations Report Appeals Board (ERAB) granted his request to remove his OPR for 2008 from his record because a Change of Rater (CRO) OPR should have been accomplished. The reaccomplished report stratified him at #1 of my 41 0-4s! h. While there are no guarantees, the stratification in the reaccomplished OPR would have most likely ensured his promotion to lieutenant colonel. In fact, in an e-mail the applicant provided to the ERAB as evidence, the military deputy spoke with him and...
AF | BCMR | CY2010 | BC-2010-03165
_________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: The Air Force Personnel Center (AFPC) and the United States Central Command Air Forces (USCENTAF) failed to update his duty history to reflect his command in Baghdad from 19 Apr to 30 Jun 03, even though he held the position for more than sixty days. A review of the OPRs included in the applicants record for the CY06A Board, reflect overall ratings of meets standards. The applicant has six...
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-2010-02096
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2010-02096 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ________________________________________________________________ THE APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His Officer Performance Report (OPR) rendered for the period 23 November 2001 through 22 November 2002 be accepted for file in his Officer Selection Record (OSR) in place of the AF Form 77, Supplement Evaluation Sheet, rendered for the period 23...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 04760
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-04760 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: The Enlisted Performance Report (EPR), rendered for the period 22 Jun 10 through 18 Nov 10, be removed from his records and replaced with an existing Letter of Evaluation (LOE) for the same period. The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are described in the letters prepared by the Air Force...
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 02-01667 INDEX CODE: 111.02 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His Enlisted Performance Report (EPR), rendered for the period 2 Feb 97 through 1 Feb 98, be replaced with the reaccomplished EPR provided; and, that he be provided supplemental promotion consideration to the grade of senior master...
Noting the rater’s statement of support, DPPPA stated the rater indicates he decided to change his evaluation and overall rating based on “performance feedback that was not available during the time of her rating considerations and post discussions with one of her past supervisors.” The rater has not stated what he knows now that he did not know when the original EPR was prepared. Applicant’s complete response is at Exhibit...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-03247
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBERS: BC-2003-03247 INDEX CODE 111.02 111.05 COUNSEL: None HEARING DESIRED: No _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) for the period 28 Apr 01 through 25 Mar 02 be declared void and removed from his records [administratively accomplished]; his duty title be corrected to reflect “NCOIC, Evaluation...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 02880
In a letter dated 7 Apr 14, the applicants Primary Care Manager (PCM) stated that it was evident that the Synthroid regimen was being adjusted when the applicant failed her now one remaining FA failure on the AC measure. The complete FAAB evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit B. AFPC/DPSID recommends denial of the applicants request for removal of her referral EPR for the period through 16 Jun 11. In this respect, we note the applicant provides a letter dated 7 Apr 14, from her PCM...
AF | BCMR | CY2010 | BC-2010-01551
DPSIDEP states the applicant did not file an appeal through the Evaluation Reports and Appeals Board (ERAB) under the provisions of Air Force Instruction 36- 2401, Correcting Officer and Enlisted Evaluation Reports; however, the ERAB reviewed the applicants request and recommended denial as they were not convinced the contested report was inaccurate or unjust. Since the EPR is not completed in accordance with Air Force Instruction 36-2406 and the applicant has failed to provide the...