RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-04760
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: YES
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
The Enlisted Performance Report (EPR), rendered for the period
22 Jun 10 through 18 Nov 10, be removed from his records and
replaced with an existing Letter of Evaluation (LOE) for the same
period.
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
He should have received a change of reporting official (CRO) EPR
due to his permanent change of station (PCS) to Patrick AFB in
Nov 10. When he submitted a PCS request for Little Rock AFB, he
notified the military personnel flight (MPF) that he had not
received the CRO EPR for the period in question. In Jun 12 an AF
Form 77, Letter of Evaluation was placed in his records in place
of the CRO EPR because eighteen months had passed since the close-
out of the report. The CRO EPR was submitted in Jun 12, but was
not considered valid in that the AF Form 77 was already a
permanent part of his record. The EPR was resubmitted in Nov 12
and finally placed in his records and the LOE was removed.
The copy of the contested report he received had an overall rating
of 4; however, the report filed into his records had an overall
rating of 3. Both of the reports were almost identical in
verbiage. The report filed in his record indicates he received
feedback on 1 Sep 11 (sic); however, he has no record of receiving
this feedback.
The applicants complete submission, with attachments, is at
Exhibit A.
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The applicant is currently serving in the Air National Guard (ANG)
in the grade of technical sergeant (E-6).
The applicants EPR profile is listed below:
Period Ending Overall Evaluation
20 Jun 08 5
20 Jun 10 5
*18 Nov 10 3
30 Mar 12 5
16 Jan 13 4
16 Jan 14 5
*Contested Report
According to AFI 36-2406, Correcting Officer and Enlisted
Evaluation Systems, performance reports are not reaccomplished if
lost or the missing report is more than 18 months past the close-
out date. Furthermore, if it has been more than 18 months since
the close-out of the report, an AF Form 77 is prepared and filed
in the record.
The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are
described in the letters prepared by the Air Force offices of
primary responsibility (OPR), which are attached at
Exhibits C and D.
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
NGB/A1PP notes the contested report was submitted into the
applicants record beyond the 18 month limit allowed by the
governing instruction and recommends removal of the contested
report.
A complete copy of the NGB/A1PP evaluation is at Exhibit C.
AFRC/A1K notes the applicant alleges an existing AF Form 77 was
removed from his records and replaced with a substandard EPR.
However, it appears the applicant has not exhausted his
administrative remedies in accordance with AFI 36-2401, Correcting
Officer and Enlisted Evaluation Reports. The applicants claim
should be referred to the Evaluation Reports Appeal Board (ERAB)
for review and determination.
A complete copy of the AFRC/A1K evaluation is at Exhibit D.
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the
applicant on 20 May 14 for review and comment within 30 days
(Exhibit E). As of this date, no response has been received by
this office.
THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:
1. The applicant has not 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 error or injustice. In this respect,
we note this Board is the highest administrative level of appeal
within the Air Force. As such, an applicant must first exhaust
all available avenues of administrative relief provided by
existing law or regulations prior to seeking relief before this
Board, as required by the governing Air Force Instruction. To
request the removal of a performance report, there is an available
avenue of administrative relief the applicant has not first
pursued. The applicant should have applied to the Evaluation
Reports Appeal Board (ERAB) prior to applying to the BCMR. In
view of this, we find this application is not ripe for
adjudication at this level, as there exists a subordinate level of
appeal that has not first been depleted. Therefore, in view of
the above, we find no basis to recommend granting the relief
sought in this application.
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 issues involved.
Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorably considered.
THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:
The applicant be notified that he has not exhausted all available
avenues of administrative relief prior to submitting his
application to the BCMR; and the application will only be
reconsidered upon exhausting all subordinate avenues of
administrative relief.
The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket Number
BC-2013-04760 in Executive Session on 2 Sep 14, under the
provisions of AFI 36-2603:
, Panel Chair
, Member
, Member
The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket
Number BC-2013-04760 was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 25 Sep 13, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, NGB/A1PP, dated 16 Dec 13.
Exhibit D. Letter, AFRC/A1K, dated 7 Apr 14.
Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 20 May 14.
4
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-01229
The complete evaluation is at Exhibit D. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant states he provided a constructed cause in effect document for consideration to breakdown much of what took place leading up to, and during, the period in question. After reviewing the documentation provided by the applicant and the evidence of record, the Board finds no persuasive evidence showing that the applicant was...
AF | BCMR | CY2010 | BC-2010-00762
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2010-00762 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES ________________________________________________________________ THE APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) rendered for the period from 8 February 2008 through 1 October 2008 be changed to reflect the correct inclusive dates, remove duplicate bullet statements, and reflect the correct dates of supervision. She...
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 98-00590 (Case 3) INDEX CODE: 107.00, 111.00 COUNSEL: AREA DEFENSE COUNSEL HEARING DESIRED: YES _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: The Letter of Evaluation (LOE), AF Form 77 (Supplemental Evaluation Sheet), dated 7 Sep 96, be removed from his records; and, that he be provided a letter of apology from the evaluator (Lt Col K---) of...
AF | BCMR | CY2010 | BC-2010-02096
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2010-02096 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ________________________________________________________________ THE APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His Officer Performance Report (OPR) rendered for the period 23 November 2001 through 22 November 2002 be accepted for file in his Officer Selection Record (OSR) in place of the AF Form 77, Supplement Evaluation Sheet, rendered for the period 23...
AF | BCMR | CY2010 | BC-2010-02256
Also, the EPR was written using the old EPR form. He does not believe there was a reason to deviate from the rating chain at that time and that the squadron just did not want him to see the report before it became a matter of record. ________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of material error or injustice; the application was denied without a personal...
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2006-03161
His additional rater abused his authority to encourage his deployed supervisor to reissue a Letter of Evaluation (LOE) with a negative statement in order to substantiate his comments and ratings on the contested EPR. ________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: The additional rater of the contested EPR closing 9 November 2003, downgraded ratings rendered by the Rater in Section III, Evaluation of Performance, for “How Well Does Ratee Perform Assigned...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2004-03357
CLOSING DATE OVERALL EVALUATION 31 Dec 03 5 31 Dec 02 5 31 Dec 01 4 (Contested) 15 Nov 00 5 31 Dec 99 5 1 May 99 5 1 May 98 5 1 May 97 5 1 May 96 5 1 May 95 5 The applicant filed a similar appeal under the provisions of AFI 36- 2401. He further contended he had only 48 days of supervision with the rater of the 31 Dec 01 EPR, and that the closeout date was changed from 15 Nov 01 to 31 Dec 01. If the applicant received a new rater in Jul 01 as the Air Force asserts, then the EPR’s reporting...
AF | BCMR | CY2008 | BC-2007-03340
Also during that time his supervisor conducted his initial performance feedback which was incorrectly written and marked as a midterm performance feedback while the memo for record (MFR) states it was an initial feedback and it was conducted with almost 90 days of supervision completed. DPSIDEP states the applicant filed an appeal through the Evaluation Reports Appeal Board (ERAB) under the provisions of AFI 36-2401, Correcting Officers and Enlisted Evaluation Reports. The complete DPSIDEP...
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 | CY2005 | BC-2005-01890
_________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: HQ AFPC/DPPP recommends the application be denied. DPPP states that applications based on the fact that the ratee and his evaluators were geographically separated, or working on a different shift, require conclusive documentation show they had no valid basis on which to assess performance. Additionally, we note that the rater on the contested report was in the applicant’s rating chain on the preceding...