RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-01365
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
Her AF Form 911, Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) (MSgt thru
CMSgt), rendered for the period 2 Apr 13 through 9 Apr 14 be
amended to reflect a senior rater endorsement.
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
She was eligible for and met all the requirements for a senior
rater endorsement; therefore, her EPR should have been signed by
the senior rater versus his deputy.
In support of her request, the applicant provides a copy of her AF
Form 911.
The applicants complete submission, with attachment, is at
Exhibit A.
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The applicant is currently serving on active duty in the grade of
master sergeant.
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
AFPC/DPSID recommends denial indicating the applicant has not
provided compelling evidence to show that the contested report was
unjust or inaccurate as written.
The applicant did file an appeal through the Evaluation Reports
Appeals Board (ERAB) under the provisions of AFI 36-2406, Officer
and Enlisted Evaluation Systems, dated 3 Jan 13; however, the case
was returned for lack of supporting evidence and no further action
was taken by the applicant.
The applicant contends that the 9 Feb 14 EPR should be corrected
to reflect Senior Rater in section VII (Reviewers Comments) and
Section VIII (Final Evaluators Position) should be changed from
Senior Raters Deputy to Senior Rater. IAW AFI 36-2406,
paragraph 3.1.11.3, if the member is Time-In-Grade (TIG) eligible
for a senior rater endorsement, a senior rater endorsement is not
automatic or mandatory. TIG eligibility, Senior Noncommissioned
Officer Academy and Community College of the Air Force are only
the minimum established requirements for endorsement
consideration, and does not entitle, or guarantee an automatic
endorsement. The initial decision to forward the evaluation to
the senior rater is up to the evaluator who is eligible to close-
out the evaluation and each level thereafter, without necessarily
going to the senior rater.
Although the applicant may feel she has been done an injustice,
the final evaluator, in this case, the Senior Raters Deputy, felt
it appropriate to close-out the EPR at their level which was
completely within their discretion to do so. Furthermore, the
applicant has provided no evidence within her case to show that
the contested EPR was inaccurate or unjust.
The applicant has failed to provide a re-accomplished EPR, along
with signed memorandums of support/justification from the original
evaluators at the time. AFI 36-2406, states the board will not
consider nor approve requests to change evaluators ratings or
comments if the evaluator does not support the change.
Air Force policy is that an evaluation report is accurate as
written when it becomes a matter of record. Additionally, it is
considered to represent the rating chains best judgment at the
time it is rendered. To effectively challenge an evaluation, it
is necessary to hear from all members of the rating chainnot only
for support, but also for clarification/explanation. The
applicant has failed to provide any information or clarification
from all the rating officials on the contested report. Once a
report is accepted for file, only strong evidence to the contrary
warrants correction or removal from an individuals record
The applicant has not substantiated that the contested report was
not rendered accurately and in good faith by all evaluators based
on knowledge available at the time.
A complete copy of the AFPC/DPSID evaluation is at Exhibit B.
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant
on 18 Apr 15, for review and comment within 30 days (Exhibit C).
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
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-2014-01365 in Executive Session on 9 Jun 15, under the
provisions of AFI 36-2603:
Panel Chair
Member
Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 24 Mar 14, w/atch.
Exhibit B. Letter, AFPC/DPSID, dated 18 Apr 15.
Exhibit C. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 5 May 15.
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2006-03969
In support of her request, the applicant submitted copies of an excerpt of AFI 36-2406; AFPC/DPMM memorandum dated 11 April 2006; Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records (AFBCMR) letter dated 16 December 2005; two Air Force Review Boards Agency (AFRBA) letters dated 16 December 2005; Evaluation Reports Appeal Board (ERAB) Decision; proposed EPR closing 14 January 2005; contested EPR closing 14 January 2005; Meritorious Service Medal documents; and EPR closing 14 January 2006 and...
AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-03198
The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application extracted from the applicants military personnel records are contained in the letter prepared by the appropriate Air Force office of primary responsibility (Exhibit B). The applicant has failed to provide any information/support from the rating chain of record on the contested EPR. As a result of this finding, AFPC/DPSIDEP has, in accordance with AFI 36-2406, Officer and Enlisted Evaluation Systems, administratively corrected the...
AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 01717
The applicant has failed to prove the contested evaluation was not rendered in good faith by the evaluators at the time and we find this portion of the applicants request to be without merit. Concerning the applicants request to have the report modified to reflect senior rater endorsement, the applicant has failed to provide a re-accomplished EPR, along with signed memoranda of support/justification from the original evaluators at the time. The complete DPSID evaluation is at Exhibit...
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...
AF | BCMR | CY2008 | BC-2007-03499
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2007-03499 INDEX CODE: 111.02 XXXXXXX COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: The Board substitute her Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) for the period of 16 December 2002 through 15 December 2003 with a replacement EPR for the same period. Accordingly, we believe the appropriate action to take in...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2012 05342
The Evaluation Report Appeals Board (ERAB) directed that his EPR closing 29 Jun 06 be replaced; however, he should have been provided supplemental promotion consideration for promotion cycles 07E8 and 08E8. Regarding the applicants contention his EPR covering the period 1 Apr 05 through 30 Sep 06, which is only a matter of record because he requested that it replace another report, was in error because it was not signed by his additional rater at the time in violation of AFI 36-2406, the...
AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-02557
_________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: His rater did not provide him with a mid-term feedback and there is evidence to support that a personality conflict existed between him and his rater. He asked for feedback and notified his chain-of-command that he was not provided feedback. In the absence of any evidence of unfair treatment or injustice, DPSID finds that the ratings were given fairly and IAW all Air Force policies and procedures.
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 | CY2006 | BC-2006-02059
The applicant filed an appeal under the provisions of AFI 36-2401, Correcting Officer and Enlisted Evaluation Reports. A complete copy of the 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 18 Aug 06 for review and comment within 30 days. MARILYN M. THOMAS Vice Chair AFBCMR BC-2006-03059 MEMORANDUM FOR THE CHIEF OF STAFF Having...
AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-04719
At the time of the FA, he suffered from multiple serious medical conditions which warranted exemption from the full FA; however, he was required to take the AC portion. On 22 Nov 10, the applicants Wing Medical Group issued a memorandum, Clarification of AC Exemption Recommendation for FA, establishing the Exercise Physiologist working with the Senior Profile Officer as the only authorities who could recommend to commanders medical exemptions from components of an FA for a member with Duty...