RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-03070
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
Her Enlisted Performance Report (EPR), rendered for the reporting
period of 16 Dec 09 through 15 Dec 10, be declared void and
replaced with a corrected version.
______________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
The contested EPR was a draft version that was mistakenly signed
and recorded and contains multiple errors, including spelling and
incorrect information. Additonally, the contested report omitted
a wing stratification.
In support of her request, the applicant provides copies of both
versions of the EPR, MFRs requesting the change, an AF Form 948,
Application For Correction/Removal Of Evaluation Reports, and
other supporting documentation.
The applicants complete submission, with attachments, is at
Exhibit A.
________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The applicant is currently serving in the Regular Air Force in the
grade of Senior Master Sergeant (E-8), effective and with a date
of rank of 1 March 2012. The following is a resume of her EPR
ratings:
RATING PERIOD PROMOTION RECOMMENDATION
* 15 Dec 10 5
15 Dec 09 (MSgt) 5
15 Dec 08 5
15 Jun 08 5
15 Jun 07 5
30 Sep 06 5
30 Sep 05 5
01 Apr 05 (TSgt) 5
01 Apr 04 5
01 Apr 03 5
* Contested Report
________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
AFPC/DPSID recommends denial of the applicants request to
substitute her EPR with a corrected version, indicating there is
no evidence of an error or injustice. The applicant filed an
appeal through the Evaluation Reports Appeals Board (ERAB);
however, the ERAB was not convinced the contested report was
unjust or inaccurate and her application was denied. A review of
both versions of the EPR does reveal multiple requested comment
changes; however, the applicant does not provide any
substantiating documentation to corroborate changes to the
statistical data, specifically aircraft generation statistics and
educational data. It also appears as though the requested changes
are intended to strengthen the overall impact of each proposed
comment or provide stratification to the existing report.
However, in accordance with AFI 36-2401, the purpose of an appeal
is to correct an error or injustice, not to strenghthen the report
for the purpose of future promotion opportunity and it is clear
the applicant is proposing changes that are not supported by
corroborating evidence. Additionally, any request to add optional
statements, specifically stratification, do not normally form the
successful basis of an appeal. These statements are not mandatory
for inclusion and their omission does not make the report
inaccurate, unless it is proven the report is erroneious or unjust
based on its content.
A complete copy of the 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 27 Aug 12 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 injustice. The Board
took notice of the applicant's complete submission in judging the
merits of the case; however, a majority of the Board agrees with
the opinion and recommendation of the Air Force office of primary
responsibility and adopts its rationale as the basis for their
conclusion the applicant has not been the victim of an error or
injustice. While the applicant contends the EPR submitted was a
draft version, and she has provided supporting statements from her
chain of command in support of her request, the majority is not
convinced she is the victim of an error or injustice. In this
respect, the majority notes that she chose to sign the contested
report when it was rendered and, in doing so, validated the
reports accuracy. Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the
contrary, the majority of the Board finds no basis to recommend
granting the relief sought in this application.
_________________________________________________________________
RECOMMENDATION OF THE BOARD:
A majority of the panel finds insufficient evidence of an error or
injustice and recommends the application be denied.
_________________________________________________________________
The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket Number
BC-2012-03070 in Executive Session on 29 January 2013 under the
provisions of AFI 36-2603:
, Panel Chair
, Member
, Member
By a majority vote, the Board voted to deny the application.
XXX voted to correct the records and has submitted a
minority report, which is attached at Exhibit E. The following
documentary evidence for was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 5 Jul 12, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPSID, dated 7 Aug 12.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 27 Aug 12.
Exhibit E. Minority Report, dated 4 Feb 13.
Panel Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-02715
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2011-02715 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His Air Force Form 911, Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) (MSgt thru CMSgt) rendered for the period 30 September 2009 through 29 September 2010, be amended in Section VII (Reviewers Comments), line 3, to reflect his enlisted stratification of #3 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 | CY2003 | BC-2003-01442
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2003-01442 INDEX CODE: 131.00 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: The Officer Performance Report (OPR) rendered for the period 1 July 2000 through 31 May 2001 be removed from her records and replaced with a reaccomplished report; and she receive promotion consideration to the grade of lieutenant...
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 | CY2010 | BC-2010-04279
DPSID states there is no evidence the original evaluation was inaccurate at the time it was completed nor is there any evidence that an injustice occurred. The complete DPSID evaluation is at Exhibit C. AFPC/DPAOO5 does not provide a recommendation. The complete DPSOO evaluation is at Exhibit E. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on 9 Aug 11, for...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-01686
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2006-01686 INDEX CODE: 111.01, 111.05, 131.01 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 8 Dec 07 _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: The Officer Performance Reports (OPR) for the periods 1 Mar 02 through 28 Feb 03 and 1 Mar 03 through 2 Jul 03 be modified by adding command push and professional military...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-01201
The complete evaluation is at Exhibit D. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant responded to the Air Force evaluations by reiterating the reasons he believes the SR endorsement on his contested report does not provide an honest, fair, or accurate description and characterization of his performance, achievements, and promotion potential during the respective reporting period. The senior rater endorsement is...
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 | 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-2010-01036
The Officer Performance Report (OPR) rendered for the period 21 Jan 05 through 20 Jan 06 be replaced with an amended report he has provided. The complete AFPC/DPSOO evaluation is at Exhibit D. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on 4 Jun 10, for review and comment within 30 days. ____________________________________________________________ THE BOARD...