RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-03691
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: YES
________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His referral Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) with an overall
rating of 2 for the period of 24 May 2012 thru 13 Dec 2012 be
removed from his records.
________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
The EPR is full of unsubstantiated claims. His supervisor wrote
the EPR and gave it to him on his last day of work.
He was only in the career field for two and a half months and
was in training when he received the EPR.
He received a positive performance feedback and received no
verbal or written warnings about the change in his performance.
Despite his best efforts, he was not given an opportunity to
address the EPR with his supervisor.
On 25 Jan 2013, he was presented with AF IMT 623a, On the Job
Training Record Continuation Sheet, and was instructed to sign
it. The plan was premised on the inaccurate EPR and based on
the unsubstantiated allegation that his skills and knowledge
were lacking.
On 29 Jan 2013, the additional rater contacted him to discuss
his rebuttal of the referral EPR. She advised him that she
would not change the rating and asked him to sign the EPR and
the training plan.
On 30 Jan 2013, he contacted the Inspector General (IG) and was
advised not to fight it. He has diligently tried to resolve the
matter directly with his chain of command to no avail.
In support of his request, the applicant provides a personal
statement, copies of the referral EPR, rebuttal statement,
e-mail communique, AF Form 623A, and other various documents
associated with his request.
The applicant's complete submission, with attachments, is at
Exhibit A.
________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The applicant is a member of the Nevada Air National Guard
(NVANG).
He received a referral EPR with an overall rating of 2 for the
period ending 13 Dec 2012.
_______________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
NGB/A1PP recommends approval. The EPR was not completed In
Accordance With (IAW) established procedures outlined in AFI 36-
2406, Officer and Enlisted Evaluation Systems. AFI 36-2406,
Chapter 2 states the rater will provide the original completed
and signed Performance Feedback Worksheet (PFW) to the ratee.
The PFW the applicant received from his supervisor was not
signed nor was it dated. Additionally, it did not contain any
information that the applicant was not meeting standards.
The copy of the EPR provided by the applicant shows that both
the rater and additional rater electronically signed the EPR one
day after close out. IAW AFI 36-2406, referral reports are
printed and contain handwritten signatures. The official record
in the Automated Records Management System (ARMS) contain
handwritten signatures but the ratee acknowledgement section
indicates the applicant declined to respond which further
persuades one to question whether the applicant was given a fair
evaluation and perhaps his unit would not weigh fairly on any
comments provided by the applicant.
Additionally, the applicant was a recent technical training
school graduate who was learning his job. He was a 3-level in a
new career field; therefore, it would be unfair to compare his
performance against another contracting technician in the grade
of staff sergeant who was not newly assigned.
The complete A1PP evaluation is at Exhibit C.
________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
On 29 Oct 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. Sufficient relevant evidence has been presented to
demonstrate the existence of error or injustice warranting
corrective action. In this respect, after a thorough review of
the evidence presented we believe the applicant has established
reasonable doubt as to whether or not the EPR in question is a
true and accurate portrayal of his performance and demonstrated
potential during the period in question. Therefore, we agree
with the recommendation of the Air Force office of primary
responsibility and adopt the rationale expressed as the basis
for our conclusion the applicant has been the victim of an
injustice. As such, we recommend the contested EPR be removed
from his records. Accordingly, we recommend the records be
corrected as indicated below.
4. The applicants 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 issue involved.
Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorably
considered.
________________________________________________________________
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT:
The pertinent military records relating to APPLICANT, be
corrected to show that his AF Form 910, Enlisted Performance
Report (AB thru TSgt), rendered for the period of 24 May
2012 to 13 Dec 2012, be declared void and removed from his
records.
________________________________________________________________
The following members of the Board considered Docket Number BC-
2013-03691 in Executive Session on 5 Jun 2014, under the
provisions of AFI 36-2603:
, Chair
, Member
, Member
All members voted to correct the records as recommended. The
following pertinent documentation in Docket Number BC-2013-
03691 was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 2 Aug 2013, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicants Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, NGB/A1PP, dated 17 Sep 2013.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 29 Oct 2013.
Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 00787
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-00787 COUNSEL: HEARING DESIRED: YES ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: The Referral Officer Performance Report (OPR) dated 11 Oct 12, be declared void and removed from her records. The complete A1PP evaluation is at Exhibit C. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC-2013-00787
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-00787 COUNSEL: HEARING DESIRED: YES ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: The Referral Officer Performance Report (OPR) dated 11 Oct 12, be declared void and removed from her records. The complete A1PP evaluation is at Exhibit C. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE...
AF | BCMR | CY2008 | BC-2008-00549
Unfortunately the applicant provided nothing from the evaluators even after the information was requested. Since DPSIDEP cannot confirm that the feedback was not accomplished, DPSIDEP considers the report to be accurate and points out, that the latest version of the evaluation forms now requires ratees to sign the report, unless there is an absence, and in this case, the ratee was deployed. DPSIDEP could correct the feedback information via the Evaluation Reports Appeal Board (ERAB);...
AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-04618
The applicant has not provided any evidence within her appeal that this report did in fact not make it into her promotion selection record in time for the promotion evaluation board. The complete DPSOE evaluation is at Exhibit D. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on 1 March 2012 for review and comment within 30 days (Exhibit E). We took notice of...
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2006-03204
Applicant states the evaluation of performance markings do not match up with the rater/additional rater's comments and promotion recommendation. 3.8.5.2 states do not suspense or require raters to submit signed/completed reports any earlier than five duty days after the close-out date. The applicant contends that he did not receive feedback and that neither the rater, nor the additional rater was his rater’s rater.
AF | BCMR | CY2009 | BC-2008-03399
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2008-03399 INDEX CODE: 111.02 XXXXXXX COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ___________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) closing 8 Sep 06 be voided and removed from his record. HQ AFPC/DPPPEP’s complete evaluation is at Exhibit...
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2006-03817
The purpose of the feedback session is to give the ratee direction and to define performance expectations for the rating period in question. The complete evaluation is at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant states the performance feedback work sheet is used to tell a ratee what is expected regarding duty performance and how well expectations are being met. After reviewing the documentation...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC-2012-05944
Furthermore, although the applicant states feedback was not accomplished, the applicant signed the initial EPR acknowledging feedback was completed during the reporting period. The initial EPR is not the document which is a matter of record and should not be considered in this situation. As for her rebuttal argument that the EPR was not signed by the appropriate additional rater, again, other than her own assertions, she has provided no evidence in support of this argument either.
AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC 2012 05944
Furthermore, although the applicant states feedback was not accomplished, the applicant signed the initial EPR acknowledging feedback was completed during the reporting period. The initial EPR is not the document which is a matter of record and should not be considered in this situation. As for her rebuttal argument that the EPR was not signed by the appropriate additional rater, again, other than her own assertions, she has provided no evidence in support of this argument either.
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2007-00777
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2007-00777 INDEX CODE: 111.05 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES MANDATORY COMPLETION DATE: 14 OCTOBER 2008 _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) for the period 30 Jul 2001 thru 29 Jul 2002 be amended or removed from his records. DPPPEP states the applicant did not file an appeal under the...