RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-04459
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His AF IMT 911, Senior Enlisted Performance Report (MSgt thru
CMSgt), Section III, Evaluation of Performance, Block 3,
Leadership, with a close-out date of 10 October 2005, be changed
from Highly Effective Leader to Exceptionally Effective
Leader.
________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
He believes the record is in error because his rater sent it
forward as a firewall 5. The rater stated it was not her
intent to markdown the leadership category. Her leadership did
not agree with her assessment and wanted it downgraded. Rather
than sending the EPR forward without the markdown and allowing
the additional rater to non-concur, she mistakenly sent it up
with the markdown.
The applicants complete submission, with attachments, is at
Exhibit A.
________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The applicant is a former member of the Air Force who retired on
1 March 2008 in the grade of master sergeant.
________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
AFPC/DPSID recommends denial. Due to the inexcusable delay of
attempting to correct the report in a timely manner, and without
statements from the entire rating chain, the report is assumed
accurate and correct as written.
In this case, it can only be assumed that at the time of the
original crafting of the report, the rater ultimately agreed
with the decision to mark him down as she signed the report. It
is not uncommon for a rater or endorser to soften their opinions
in retrospect as time passes.
The applicant has provided insufficient documentation to prove
his assertions that the contested evaluation was rendered
unfairly or unjustly. Air Force policy is an evaluation report
is considered to represent the rating chains best judgment at
the time it is rendered.
In accordance with AFI 36-2401, Correcting Officer and Enlisted
Evaluation Reports, paragraph 1.3 states the Board will not
consider nor approve requests to change an evaluators ratings
or comments if the evaluator does not support the change. When
an evaluator supports changing ratings, all subsequent
evaluators must also agree to the changes. In order to
challenge the validity of an evaluation report, it is necessary
to hear from all the members of the rating chain.
The complete 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 8 September 2014, for review and comment within
30 days (Exhibit D). As of this date, this office has received
no response.
________________________________________________________________
THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:
1. The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by
existing law or regulations.
2. The application was not timely filed; however, it is in the
interest of justice to excuse the failure to timely file.
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 AFPC/DPSID and adopt its rationale as the basis for our
conclusion that absent statements that all evaluators support
the requested change, we find no basis to disturb the existing
record. Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary,
we find no compelling basis to recommend granting the relief
sought in this application.
________________________________________________________________
THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:
The applicant be notified that the 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 considered AFBCMR Docket
Number BC-2013-04459 in Executive Session on 16 October 2014
under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 9 Sep 13, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicants Master Personnel Record Excerpts.
Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPSID, dated 8 Aug 14.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 8 Sep 14.
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 | 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...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 05186
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-05186 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her AF Form 707, Officer Performance Report (OPR) (Lt thru Col), rendered for the period 16 September 2012 through 26 June 2013, be filed in her Officer Selection Record (OSR). APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: Her final OPR from the Joint Staff, corrected DMSM, or the correct version of her PRF were not timely submitted to...
AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-03800
The applicant failed to provide any information or support from the rating chain of record on the contested report. The complete DPSID evaluation is at Exhibit D. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on 3 May 2013 for review and comment within 30 days (Exhibit D). Additionally, we note AFPC/DPSIMs recommendation to remove the 6 May 2011 Letter...
AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 01675
Applicants EPR closeout profile for the last four years is as follows: CLOSEOUT RATING 13 Sep 10 2 13 Sep 11 5 13 Sep 12 5 * 17 May 13 4 Directed by Commander 1 Nov 13 5 Directed by same Commander 30 Nov 14 5 * Contested EPR The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the memorandum prepared by the Air Force office of primary responsibility (OPR), which is attached at Exhibit C. AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSID recommends denial indicating there is no...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC-2013-01902
b. AFPC/DPSIDs advisory opinion states The applicant believes that after subtraction of his TDY to the NCO Academy and the time he was loaned out to another section, the rater on the contested evaluation did not obtain the minimum required supervision of 120 days. In his original application, there is substantial evidence that shows the Chief did not have enough days of supervision to close out a report on him. The Chief sent an email to him on 21 Sep 09 stating he was assigned as his...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC-2012-02221
His Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) with the close-out date of 19 August 2009 be voided and removed from his records. He believes that his EPR was used to cancel his assignment and therefore, it should be voided and removed from his records. With regard to assignment been may have 5 the applicant’s placement onto the Control Roster, as a result of the commander directed inquiry which revealed the applicant’s unprofessional relationship, the commander issued an LOR with control roster action.
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 00316
The Article 15 imposed on 20 Sep 10 be removed from his records. The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the letters prepared by the appropriate offices of the Air Force, which are attached at Exhibits C and D. ________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFLOA/JAJM recommends denial of the applicants request to remove the NJP from the applicants records, indicating there is no evidence of an error or...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC-2013-00092
He was rated on personal bias and events that occurred outside the reporting period. The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the letters prepared by the appropriate offices of the Air Force, which are attached at Exhibits C through E. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSID recommends denial of the applicants request to void and remove the contested EPR. Therefore, we find no basis to recommend...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 02896
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-02896 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her Enlisted Performance Reports (EPR), rendered for the periods 2 Aug 90 through 31 Mar 90 and 1 Apr 90 through 31 Mar 91, be reevaluated and she receive promotion consideration to grade of staff sergeant (E-5). The applicant received an overall...