ADDENDUM TO
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2011-00720
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NOT INDICATED
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
1. His Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) for the period ending
13 Oct 05 be voided and removed from his records reconsideration request.
2. His Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) for the period ending 30
Jun 06 be voided and removed from his records new request.
_________________________________________________________________
RESUME OF CASE:
The applicant filed a complaint with the Air Mobility Command
Inspector General (AMC/IG) alleging that his promotion was
withheld in reprisal for a protected communication and he was
rendered a referral Enlisted Performance Report (EPR). The
62 AW/IG concluded there was insufficient justification to
conduct an investigation and recommended the applicants
allegations be dismissed. Additionally, both AMC/IGQ and SAF/IGQ
reviewed the report and concurred that the allegations should be
dismissed. The applicant also filed a complaint with the Equal
Employment Opportunity (EEO) office; however, his case was
dismissed.
He filed an appeal through the Evaluation Reports Appeals Board
(ERAB); however, the ERAB was not convinced the original report
was unjust or wrong and denied his request.
On 2 Feb 11, the Board considered and denied the applicants
request to void his 2005 EPR, reinstate his line number, award
him the AFCM, and fly a flag for his service. A complete copy of
the Record of Proceedings is attached at Exhibit H (w/atchs,
excluding F and G).
By letter, dated 7 Jul 12, the applicant requests reconsideration
of his request to have his 2005 EPR removed or voided from his
record and provided additional evidence. Additionally, he
requests his 2006 EPR be removed or voided from his record. The
applicant states that it is the smoking gun in his case and it
proves that something was not accurate when the Air Force
processed his EPR because non-concurrences of EPRs rarely happen.
It happened in his case because he voiced his concerns to the IG
office, EEO office, and his Congressman when he asked for
assistance.
The applicants complete submission, with attachments, is at
Exhibit I.
_________________________________________________________________
THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:
1. In an earlier finding, the Board determined there was
insufficient evidence to warrant corrective action. After
thoroughly reviewing the additional documentation submitted in
support of his appeal and the evidence of record, we do not
believe the applicant has overcome the rationale expressed in the
previous Board decision. With regard to the applicants request
to remove the 2006 EPR, the applicant has not provided evidence
that the contested report is erroneous, unjust or that it does
not reflect an accurate depiction of his performance during the
rating period in question. Therefore, in view of the above and
in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no basis upon
which to recommend favorable consideration of the applicants
request.
2. The applicant's case is adequately documented and it has not
been shown that a personal appearance with or without counsel
will materially add to our understanding of the issues involved.
Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorably considered.
_________________________________________________________________
THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:
The applicant be notified that the additional 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 reconsidered AFBCMR Docket
Number BC-2011-00720 in Executive Session on 4 Apr 13, under the
provisions of AFI 36-2603:
, Panel Chair
, Member
, Member
The following additional documentary evidence for Docket Number
BC-2011-00720 was considered:
Exhibit H. Record of Proceedings, dated 8 Mar 12, w/atchs.
Exhibit I. Letter, Applicant, dated 7 Jul 12, w/atchs.
Panel Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-00720
In support of his request, the applicant provides a personal statement, excerpts from his medical records, letters of support, and other documentation associated with his request. The following is a resume of his EPR ratings, commencing with the report closing 26 Oct 07: RATING PERIOD PROMOTION RECOMMENDATION 26 Oct 07 5 20 Dec 06 5 20 Jun 06 4 * 13 Oct 05 2 13 Oct 04 5 * Contested Report Under separate cover, the applicant requested assistance from Senator Murray on 19 Jan 11 in support of...
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 | CY2013 | BC-2012-02987
On 13 Jul 11, the DoD/IG office completed their review of the applicants reprisal case and determined that there was no evidence of reprisal/abuse of authority. On 19 Jan 12, the DoD/IG completed their review of the applicants complaint dated 4 Jul 11, and determined that there was no evidence of reprisal by her former commander. DPSID states that Air Force policy is that an evaluation report is accurate as written when it becomes a matter of record.
AF | BCMR | CY2009 | BC-2009-01997
On 20 Jan 04, the applicant initiated an AF Form 102, Inspector General Personal and Fraud, Waste and Abuse Complaint Registration , alleging reprisal and abuse of authority by his chain of command relative to his EPR and his request for extension of his (DEROS). On 20 Dec 05, the applicant was notified by Headquarters, Air Mobility Command Office of the Inspector General (HQ AMC/IG) of its findings regarding his allegations. SAF/IG reviewed the HQ AMC/IG report of investigation and...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-02138
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2005-02138 INDEX CODE: 111.02 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 10 JANUARY 2007 _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His Officer Performance Report (OPR) rendered for the period of 13 June 2002 through 12 June 2003 be voided and removed from his records. DPPP states the additional rater’s letter...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 04596
THE AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSIDE recommends the applicant submit an AF Form 948, Application for Correction/Removal of Evaluation Reports, with all required supporting documentation, through the vMPF Evaluation Appeals, as he has not exhausted his administrative remedies, prior to seeking relief from the Board. The first avenue of relief is through the Evaluation Report Appeals Board (ERAB). Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPSIDE, dated 17 April 2014.
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 04268
The complete DPSOE evaluation is at Exhibit C. AFPC/DPSID recommends denial of applicants requests to remove the contested EPRs ending 12 Aug 09 and 29 Jun 10. Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of an error or injustice to warrant reversing his demotion to the grade of SSgt, promoting him to the grade of MSgt with back pay or removing the contested EPRs from his record. Therefore, aside from DPSOEs recommendation to time bar the applicants...
Copies of the EPRs are provided at Exhibit B. The ERAB indicated the applicant was found guilty of disturbing the peace and fined by a civilian court system after pleading no contest and no inappropriate comments were found on the report. The EPR states the applicant improved his conduct “after off-duty civil criminal conviction of ‘disturbing the peace.’” The applicant did plead nolo contendre in civilian court on 2 Aug 99 to a charge of disturbing the peace, which did, in fact, result in...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-02499
The IG dismissed the complaint because documented evidence against the complainant supported the 2 EPR rating. After a thorough review of the evidence of record and applicant’s submission, we are unpersuaded that the contested EPR should be removed from her record. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of material error or injustice; that...
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...