RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-02208
XXXXXXX COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
1. His Enlisted Performance Report (EPR), rendered for the
period 2 Jun 2009 through 1 Jun 2010, be replaced.
2. The unsigned EPR rendered for the period 2 Jun 2007 through
1 Jun 2008 be replaced with a signed copy. (Administratively
Corrected)
________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
The EPR he received in 2010 does not properly reflect two awards
he received in 2008. He was an award winner and that
information was never included in his EPR. His award should be
annotated on the EPR and his ratings should be adjusted
accordingly.
His 2008 EPR was not signed by all raters, therefore, does not
reflect an accurate report/rating.
In support of his request, the applicant provides copies of his
EPRs rendered for the period 2 Jun 2009 through 1 Jun 2010 and
2 Jun 2007 through 1 Jun 2008 as well as memorandums for the
Evaluation Reports Appeal Board (ERAB).
The applicants complete submission, with attachments, is at
Exhibit A.
________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The relevant facts pertaining to this application are described
in the letter prepared by the Air Force office of primary
responsibility at Exhibit C.
_____________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
AFPC/DPSID recommends denial of the applicants request to
replace the Enlisted Performance Report (EPR), rendered for the
period 2 Jun 2009 through 1 Jun 2010. DPSID states that the
applicant did file an appeal through the ERAB under the
provisions of AFI 36-2401, Correcting Officer and Enlisted
Evaluation Reports; however, the ERAB was not convinced there
was a material error in the content of the 1 Jun 2010 report and
denied the applicant's request for relief. Moreover, an
evaluation report is considered to represent the rating chain's
best judgment at the time it is rendered. Once a report is
accepted for file, only strong evidence to the contrary warrants
correction or removal from an individual's record. The
applicant has not provided any compelling evidence to show that
the report is unjust or inaccurate as written. Although the
awards not being reflected in his EPR may be a valid request,
the awards were in fact from the 4th Quarter of 2008 and an
annual award from 2008 and thereby should have been properly
included in his 1 Jun 2009 close-out EPR, rather than the 1 Jun
2010 report. The 2010 report filed as a matter of record
currently has two mark downs; therefore, it appears that the
applicant desires to substitute this report to justify the
marking change resulting in a "firewall 5" EPR. It also appears
the applicant would rather not correct the proper report (2009)
due to the fact that it is already a "firewall 5" EPR.
Notwithstanding the above, DPSID urges the Board to recommend
correcting the 2009 report to add the applicants award
accomplishments as it is a more appropriate time frame.
Regarding his request to replace his EPR rendered for the period
2 Jun 2007 through 1 Jun 2008, DPSID located a digitally signed
copy of his EPR and it has been forwarded to the Automated
Records Management System for inclusion.
The complete DPSID evaluation is at Exhibit C.
________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF THE AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
On 6 Dec 2013, a copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded
to the applicant 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 an error or an injustice to warrant
replacing the applicants EPR rendered for the period 2 Jun
2009 through 1 Jun 2010. We note that the Air Force Office of
Primary Responsibility (OPR) has adequately addressed his
request and we are in agreement with their recommendation.
Therefore, other than the administration correction noted by the
OPR, we find no basis upon which to recommend favorable
consideration of his request.
4. Notwithstanding the above, sufficient relevant evidence has
been presented to demonstrate the existence of an error or
injustice to warrant partial relief. We note that the OPR
recommends that the EPR rendered for the period 2 Jun
2008 through 1 Jun 2009 be corrected to add the applicants
award accomplishments and we agree with their recommendation.
Accordingly, we recommend the applicant's records be corrected
to the extent indicated below.
________________________________________________________________
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT:
The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air
Force relating to APPLICANT, be corrected to place a revised AF
Form 910, Enlisted Performance Report (AB thru TSgt), rendered
for the period 2 Jun 2008 through 1 Jun 2009, correcting only
Section VI, Additional Raters Comments, Line 3 to read
Recognized leader; SQ NCO 4th qrtr 108 & 55th Electronic Combat
Group 108 AFE NCO of the year...promote! rather than
Recognized NCO; won 386 EOG 1st Sergeants "Diamond Sharp"
Awd/"coined" by EOG/CC--promote ASAP!
________________________________________________________________
?
The following members of the Board considered this application
in Executive Session on 20 Feb 2014, under the provisions of AFI
36-2603:
, Panel Chair
, Member
, Member
All members voted to correct the record as recommended. The
following documentary evidence was considered in AFBCMR BC-2013-
02208:
Exhibit A. DD Forms 149, dated 26 Mar 2013, w/atchs and
16 May 2013, w/atch.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPSID, dated 12 Nov 2013.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 6 Dec 2013.
Panel Chair
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY PRIVACY ACT OF 1974
8
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY PRIVACY ACT OF 1974
4
AF | BCMR | CY2010 | BC-2010-01586
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2010-01586 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO __________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) rendered for the period 2 Jan 09 through 1 Jan 10, Section III, Block 2, Performance Assessment, Standards, Conduct, Character & Military Bearing, be changed to match the wording on his Letter of Reprimand...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 04551
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-04551 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His Referral Enlisted Performance Report (EPR), rendered for the period of 21 Jun 12 through 20 Jun 13, be voided or removed from his military personnel records. In accordance with AFI 36-2406, Officer and Enlisted Evaluation Systems, chapter 10, paragraph 10.1.1: The Evaluation Reports Appeal Board (ERAB) was...
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 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-2010-01984
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 | 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 | CY2013 | BC 2013 00264
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-00264 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 1. As a result of the failed FAs, his projected promotion to the grade of SSgt was cancelled and he received a referral EPR. Although DPSOE initially recommended denial of the applicants request to be supplementally considered for promotion to...
AF | BCMR | CY2008 | BC-2007-03091
Section III, Evaluation of Performance, contains ratings marked one block to the left by his rater, the squadron commander, and the additional rater, the group commander, for Duty performance and Managerial Skills. If the applicant had provided some supporting documentation that the feedback date was in error, the ERAB would have corrected the report to reflect the accurate date and/or applicable statement versus voiding the report. The applicant provided no evidence to support his claim.
AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-03489
The complete DPSID evaluation is at Exhibit D. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANTS REVIEW OF THE AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The reason he did not file an appeal through the ERAB is because it would require the documented reversal or amendment of the rater evaluation or written evidence to that fact, and he disagrees with his removal from command and contests the subsequent performance report. However, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of the...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC-2013-01918
________________________________________________________________ _ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSID recommends denial to remove the contested report from the applicants records. The DPSID complete evaluation is at Exhibit C. AFPC/DPSID recommends denial of the AFGCM. The DPSID complete evaluation is at Exhibit D. ________________________________________________________________ _ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: On 15 October 2013, a copy of the Air Force evaluation...