RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-00759
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
The Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) rendered for the period
16 Apr 12 through 15 Apr 13 be voided from his records.
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
According to AFI 36-2401, Correcting Officer and Enlisted
Evaluation Reports, and AFI 36-2406, Officer and Enlisted
Evaluation Systems; his rater did not have 120 days of
supervision to write an annual report. According to the AFI a
valid assessment can be rendered by the rater with a minimum of
60 days of supervision; his rater only had 8 days of actual
supervision. Due to the lack of supervision his rater could not
effectively evaluate his performance and had no valid basis to
assess a rating for the period in question due to them being
geographically separated.
AFI 36-2406, paragraph 3.1.6.2 states Do not deduct any periods
of leave, TDY, absences or period of loaned out to other
organizations.
The applicants complete submission, with attachments, is at
Exhibit A.
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The applicant is currently serving on active duty in the grade
of technical sergeant (E-6).
The applicants EPR profile is listed below:
Period Ending Overall Evaluation
15 Apr 12 5
*15 Apr 13 4
15 Apr 14 4
30 Nov 14 5
*Contested Report
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 evidence of
an error or an injustice.
The applicant filed an appeal through the Evaluation Reports
Appeals Board (ERAB). His case was closed due him failing
provide additional supporting documentation.
The applicant contends his rater did not have enough days of
supervision to write the contested EPR. Under the provisions of
the old version of AFI 36-2406, dated 15 Apr 05, all periods of
30 days or more were deducted from the number of days of
supervision if the rater or ratee was TDY, on leave, in patient
status, in classroom training, AWOL, Dropped From Roll, or in
confinement. However, on 3 Jan 13, AFI 36-2406 was republished
combining AFI 36-2406 and AFI 36-2401. Under the new AFI period
of leave, TDY, absences or period loaned out other organizations
are not deducted from the number of days of supervision. Some
of the changes that were made to the AFI included paragraph
3.1.6.2 Do NOT deduct any period of leave, TDY, absences or
period loaned out to other organizations. Since the
applicants contested report closed out after the publishing of
the new AFI, there is no valid basis for his request.
Furthermore, Air Force policy is that an evaluation report is
considered accurate as written when it becomes a matter of
record, and is a representation of the rating chains best
judgment at the time it is rendered. To effectively challenge
an evaluation, it is necessary to hear from all the members of
the rating chainnot only for support, but also for
clarification/explanation. The applicant has not provided any
information or documented support from his rating chain.
Without benefit of these statements, and based on the evidence
provided, they can only conclude the report is accurate as
written. They determined the contested report was accomplished
in direct accordance with all application Air Force policy.
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 7 Jan 15 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 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. We took
notice of the applicants complete submission in judging the
merits of the case; however, we agree with the opinion and
recommendation of the Air Force office of primary responsibility
(OPR) and adopt its rationale as the basis for our conclusion
the applicant has not been the victim of an error of injustice.
Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find
no basis to recommend granting the requested relief.
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 appearance; and 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-2014-00759 in Executive Session on 24 Feb 15 under the
provisions of AFI 36-2603:
, Panel Chair
, Member
, Member
The following documentary evidence pertaining AFBCMR Docket
Number BC-2014-00759 was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 19 Feb 14, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Memorandum, AFPC/DPSID, dated 6 Nov 147 Jan 15
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 7 Jan 15.
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 | CY2007 | BC-2007-01877
_________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: Between September 2006 and January 2007 of the rating period, his rating official had only 107 days of supervision and not the 276 days as stated on his EPR. He contends he never received a performance feedback and that Air Force Instruction (AFI) 36-2406, Officer and Enlisted Evaluation Systems, required supervisors to have a minimum of 120 days of direct supervision before an EPR can be generated. ...
AF | BCMR | CY2010 | BC-2010-02279
In accordance with AFI-36-2406, Officer and Enlisted Evaluation Systems, Table 3.7, Note 6, the close-out date for EPRs is one year from the previous EPR close-out date or when 120 calendar days of supervision have passed. From the time the new rater was assigned until the EPR close-out on 2 Mar 10 there were 124 days of supervision, making the evaluation an accurate report in accordance with AFI 36-2406. We took notice of the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of the...
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2007-00452
In support of his request, the applicant submits copies of his EPRs; performance feedback evaluations; awards and decorations; letters of support; leave and earnings statements; temporary duty (TDY) documentation; excerpts of Air Force Instruction (AFI) 36-2406; Application for Correction/Removal of Evaluation Reports and correspondence concerning supplemental board consideration. DPPPEP states a report is not erroneous or unfair because the applicant believes it contributed to a...
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 | CY2012 | BC-2011-04279
DPSID states the applicant did not file an appeal through the Evaluation Reports Appeal Board’s (ERAB) under the provisions of AFI 36-240l, Correcting Officer and Enlisted Evaluation Reports. DPSID states, that in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, the rater did follow all applicable policies and procedures in the preparation and completion of the contested evaluation. It appears the report was accomplished in direct accordance with applicable Air 4 Force instructions.
AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 02192
A raters failure to conduct a required or requested feedback session, or document the session on a PFW, will not, of itself, invalidate any subsequent performance report or (for officers) PRF. Furthermore, IAW AFI 36-2401, paragraph Al.5.8, it states that Only members in the rating chain can confirm if counseling was provided. While current Air Force policy requires performance feedback for personnel, a direct correlation between information provided during feedback sessions and the...
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 | CY2012 | BC-2012-02655
After a careful review of the evidence provided in the case, they concluded that this person was most likely MSgt J., who confirmed in a provided email that MSgt(s) W and J were the only two individuals during the contested rating period that had direct supervision over the applicant. The complete AFPC/DPSID evaluation is at Exhibit C. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded...
AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-00827
In support of his request, the applicant provides copies of his EPRs for periods ending 4 Apr 08 and 13 Jan 09, his appeal to the Evaluation Report Appeals Board (ERAB) and, a memorandum from his rater dated 6 May 08. Moreover, while Air Force policy requires formal feedback be documented, a direct correlation between information provided during the feedback session and the assessments on an evaluation report does not necessarily exist. The complete AFPC/DPSOE evaluation is at Exhibit...