RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-01717
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: YES
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His 26 Jan 13 Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) be voided or
corrected to reflect his commanders rating and senior raters
endorsement.
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
His rater failed to properly provide performance feedback in
accordance with AFI 36-2406, Officer and Enlisted Performance
Systems, because she routinely provided initial and midterm
feedback on the same day. In addition, his initial and midterm
feedback, as well as EPR, have almost identical verbiage to
another Senior Non-Commissioned Officer (SNCO).
The EPR rating and intermediate endorsement were based on a
personality conflict and not his performance as evidenced by his
commanders non-concurrence with the raters assessment of his
primary duties however; he still received an intermediate
endorsement. The unjust EPR has crippled her ability to compete
for promotion to Senior Master Sergeant.
The applicants complete submission, with attachments, is at
Exhibit A.
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The applicant, currently on active duty in the Regular Air Force
in the grade of Master Sergeant, received an EPR closing 26 Jan
13, with a rating of 5. The report was signed by the rater
and additional rater on 28 Jan 13. Section VIII, Final
Evaluators Position of subject EPR was checked at the
Intermediate Level.
Based on information provided by the applicant, PPA Evaluation
Appeals document control number 5233445, the Evaluation Review
Appeals Board was not convinced the original report was unjust
or wrong, and denied the requested relief.
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.
The applicant contends that the 5 EPR rendered on 26 Jan 13 is
unjust based on his claim feedback was never conducted nor was
there a feedback program in place. 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, 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.
The applicant further contends that due to the commanders non-
concurrence to the mark down in Section III, Block 1, warrants
removal of the contested evaluation. The applicant feels that
the non-concurrence alone is justification for voiding the
report, but rather it is only changing the marking on the front.
The member has provided no proof an error/injustice had
occurred, but rather confirmed by his own statement he had
received day-to-day feedback through discussion with this rater
and the rating chain felt he wasnt a firewall 5. 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 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.
Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find
no basis to recommend granting the requested relief.
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 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 AFBCMR Docket
Number BC-2014-01717 was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 21 Apr 14, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Memorandum, AFPC/DPSID, dated 6 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 | 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 | 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 | CY2014 | BC 2014 01668
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. 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...
AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 01365
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'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...
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...
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 | 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-2012-00827
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 | 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...