RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-05389
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: YES
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
1. His referral Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) for the
period ending 18 Nov 10 with an overall rating of 2 be changed
to a 3 or be removed from his record.
2. He receives supplemental promotion consideration to the
grade of Staff Sergeant (SSgt, E-5) for Cycle 2013.
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
He was moved from customer service to force management with over
120 days of supervision and a Change of Reporting Official (CRO)
EPR was not accomplished.
The Article 15 he received during the reporting period should
have been included on the CRO EPR and not on the EPR from force
management.
The EPR was unjustly harsh and caused him to miss promotion to
the grade of SSgt by 3 points.
The applicants complete submission, with attachments, is at
Exhibit A.
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
On 18 Mar 08, the applicant entered the regular Air Force.
According to an AF Form 910, Enlisted Performance Report (AB
thru TSgt), for the period ending 18 Nov 10, he received a
referral EPR with an overall rating of 2.
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
AFPC/DPSID recommends denial of the applicants request to
remove the contested EPR based on a lack of corroborating
evidence. Air Force policy is that an evaluation report is
accurate as written when it becomes a matter of record and it is
considered to represent the rating chains best judgment at the
time it is rendered. The applicant has not provided compelling
evidence to show that the report was unjust or inaccurate as
written. Statements from all the evaluators during the
contested period are conspicuously absent. In order to
effectively and successfully challenge the validity of an
evaluation report, it is necessary to hear from all members of
the rating chain. He has failed to provide the necessary
information/support from any rating official on the contested
EPR. Furthermore, the applicant did not file an appeal through
the Evaluation Reports Appeals Board (ERAB) under the provisions
of AFI 36-2401, Correcting Officer and Enlisted Evaluation
Reports.
DPSID also recommends denial of the applicants request to
upgrade the contested report to a 3. The applicant has made a
prohibited request by failing to provide a re-accomplished EPR,
along with signed memorandums of support/justification from the
original evaluators at the time. Per AFI 36-2401, appeals
requesting to re-accomplish an evaluation will not be considered
without the applicant furnishing a new evaluation.
The complete DPSID evaluation is at Exhibit B.
AFPC/DPSOE recommends denial of the applicants request for
supplemental promotion consideration to the grade of SSgt for
Cycle 13E5 based on the recommendation of DPSID that the EPR
should not be upgraded or removed.
The complete DPSOE evaluation is at Exhibit C.
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the
applicant on 4 Nov 14 for review and comment within 30 days
(Exhibit D). 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. The Air Force offices of primary responsibility
have reviewed this application and indicated there are available
avenues of administrative relief the applicant has not first
pursued. In view of this, we find this application is not ripe
for adjudication at this level, as there are subordinate levels
of appeal that have 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-2013-05389 in Executive Session on 9 Dec 14 under the
provisions of AFI 36-2603:
, Panel Chair
, Member
, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 15 Nov 13, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Memorandum, AFPC/DPSID, dated 29 Sep 14.
Exhibit C. Memorandum, AFPC/DPSOE, dated 14 Oct 14.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 4 Nov 14.
AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-02070
DPSID states the applicant did file an appeal through the Evaluation Report Appeals Board (ERAB) under the provisions of Air Force Instruction (AFI) 36-2401, Correcting Officer and Enlisted Evaluation Reports; however, the ERAB was not convinced the contested report was inaccurate or unjust. In the applicants case, the feedback date is clearly annotated on the form, and the applicant has not proved, through his submitted evidence that the feedback date as recorded did not in fact take...
AF | BCMR | CY2010 | BC 2010 02146
The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the memorandum prepared by the Air Force offices of primary responsibility (OPR), which are attached at Exhibits C, D, and E. AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSID recommends denial indicating there is no evidence of an error or an injustice regarding the contested EPR. He believes the additional information he provides will show how the nuclear weapons incident on 30 Aug 07 itself solely led to his lower rating in 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 | 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 04096
The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the memorandums prepared by the Air Force offices of primary responsibility (OPR), which are attached at Exhibits C, D, and E. AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSIM recommends approval of the applicants request to remove the 21 Oct 10 and 21 Dec 10 FAs from her records. Based on the documentation provided by the applicant, it is determined that the applicant was pregnant at the time the FAs were administered on 21 Oct...
AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-04746
The first time the contested report was used in the promotion process was cycle 11E6. The complete AFPC/DPSID evaluation is at Exhibit D. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: On 23 Mar 2012, copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant for review and comment within 30 days. ________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: The pertinent military records...
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 | CY2010 | BC-2010-04430
The applicant received the Article 15 in 2008 and the 2009 report was removed from his records, but the 2010 report was rendered under the supervision of new evaluators. Furthermore, no evidence was provided to support the contention that the 6 Mar 10 performance report was the result of the Article 15. The complete AFPC/DPSOE evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit D. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: He did...
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 | CY2011 | BC-2011-01820
The applicant filed an appeal through the Evaluation Report Appeals Board (ERAB) under the provisions of AFI 36-2401, Correcting Officer and Enlisted Evaluation Reports, however, the ERAB was not convinced the contested report was inaccurate or unjust and disapproved the applicants request. The complete DPSOE evaluation is at Exhibit D. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Copies of the Air Force evaluations were...