RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-01668
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) for the period 19 Aug 12
through 18 Aug 13 be corrected to a 5 or removed from his
records.
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
He spoke with the operations officer and there is no
justification for receiving a 3 rating on his EPR; especially
given he has no disciplinary paperwork in his record. The only
feedback received after midterm was that he was doing a great
job and he should not trust the Technical Sergeants, Staff
Sergeants and Airmen below him.
He was told before he could out-process from the squadron he had
to sign his EPR, but then later found out they did not use it.
He was then told by a few of the Master Sergeants working in the
back office that there would be repercussions for his flight
initiating getting a commander fired.
The applicants complete submission, with attachments, is at
Exhibit A.
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
On 29 Nov 93, the applicant entered the Regular Air Force.
On 19 Nov 13, he was unavailable to sign his EPR for the period
19 Aug 12 to 18 Aug 13, whereby he received an overall 3
rating.
On 30 Nov 14, the applicant was released from active duty and
retired effective 1 Dec 14. He was credited with 21 years and 2
days of active service.
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
AFPC/DPSID recommends denial indicating the applicant has not
provided compelling evidence to show that the report was unjust
or inaccurate as written. The applicant has not provided
sufficient, substantiating documentation or evidence to prove
his assertions that the contested evaluation was rendered
unfairly or unjustly, and has merely offered his view of events
as he believers them to be true.
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 the members of the rating chain
not 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
evaluation. It is determined that the report was accomplished
in direct accordance with all applicable Air Force policies and
procedures. DPSID contends that once a report is accepted for
file, only strong evidence to the contrary warrants correction
or removal from an individuals record.
The applicant contends that the 3 EPR rendered 18 Aug 13 is
unjust based on his claim feedback was never conducted along
with no justification being provided to the 3 overall rating.
If the applicant was concerned about his lack of feedback, there
were avenues to take to resolve the issue. When a required
feedback does not take place, IAW AFI 36-2406, Officer and
Enlisted Evaluation Systems, paragraph 2.2.1.3., it is the
ratees responsibility to notify the rater, and if necessary the
raters rater, when required or requested feedback did not take
place. In this case, the applicant does not appear to have
sought any remedies from the additional rater of the report to
obtain feedback if this was not completed. While documented
feedback sessions are required, they do not replace informal
day-to-day feedback. A raters failure to conduct a required or
requested feedback session, or document the session on a
Performance Feedback Worksheet (PFW), does not invalidate a
performance report.
Concerning the applicants request to have the rating on the
contested report changed to a 5, 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 governing directive states that appeals requesting to re-
accomplish an evaluation will not be considered without the
applicant furnishing a new evaluation. It is therefore our
recommendation that, for this reason alone, the AFBCMR reject
the applicants request to amend or change the overall rating.
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 17 Apr 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
and adopt its rationale as the basis for our conclusion the
applicant has not been the victim of an error of injustice.
While we acknowledge the applicants request to have his EPR
corrected or removed from his records, we do not believe he has
demonstrated evidence of an injustice, as compared to others in
his similar situation. 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 documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket
Number BC-2014-01668 was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 1 Apr 14, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Memorandum, AFPC/DPSID, dated 8 Apr 15.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 17 Apr 15.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 | 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 | 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-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...
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 | 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 00308
The ERAB denied his request indicating he did not provide sufficient evidence to support his allegations for removal of the contested report. While current Air Force policy requires performance feedback for personnel, a direct correlation between information provided during feedback sessions and the assessments on evaluation reports does not necessarily exist. Therefore, while the applicant would argue that it would be appropriate to declare the report void and remove it from his records,...
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 | CY2013 | BC 2013 00951
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-00951 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His enlisted performance report (EPR) covering the period 8 Oct 07 through 7 Oct 08 be declared void and removed from his record. He was not provided any midterm feedback during the evaluation period, but his rater put 15 Feb 08 in Block V as the date...
In support of her appeal, the applicant provided a personal statement, an Inspector General (IG) Summary Report of Investigation, copies of the contested report and performance feedback worksheets, and other documents associated with the matter under review. The applicant did not provide any information/support from the rating chain on the contested EPR. A complete copy of the DPPPAB evaluation is at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S...