ADDENDUM TO
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:				DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2003-03377
								INDEX CODE:  111.00, 131.00
								COUNSEL:  NONE
								HEARING DESIRED:  NO

MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 16 FEB 07

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

1.  Her Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) prepared for the period 2 Mar 02 through 1 Mar 03, be removed from her records.

2.  She be supplementally considered for promotion to the grade of master sergeant.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

In a previous appeal, applicant requested the following:

1.  She be reinstated to the grade of master sergeant with her original effective date.

2.  She be reimbursed for all lost pay and allowances.

3.  Any record of derogatory data be removed from her personnel records and Enlisted Performance Report (EPR). 

4.  She be awarded the Meritorious Service Medal (MSM) for her permanent change-of-station move.

5.  She be supplementally considered for promotion to the grade of senior master sergeant for the 03E8 and 04E8 promotion cycles.

Her appeal was considered on 8 Oct 04, and by a majority vote, the Board denied her request.  For an account of the facts and circumstances surrounding her appeal and the Board's decision, see the Record of Proceedings at Exhibit L.

In her most recent submission, applicant states the EPR was not processed in accordance with AFI 36-2406, Officer and Enlisted Evaluation System.  The report was not referred to her a second time upon the additional rater's referral comments.  Had the report been processed accordingly the outcome may have been significantly different.  The rebuttal comments she would have provided may have persuaded the evaluators to upgrade their ratings and/or invalidated the referral comments.  In addition, the date the rater signed the report is inaccurate.  It shows a March 2002 date when the report covered a period ending March 2003.  

In support of her request, applicant provided a personal statement, a statement of support, copies of the contested EPR, copies of EPRs rendered between March 2000 and March 2005, and documentation associated with her Evaluation Reports Appeal Board (ERAB) decision.  Her complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit M.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPP recommends denial.  DPPP states the report was referred to the applicant by the rater for markings in Section III, Block 6 and the comments, "reprimanded/demoted for fraudulent instructor certification as ALS flight chief-placed back in PAFSC" and "despite administrative action, TSgt   has stayed involved and motivated."  This information was specifically annotated in the referral memorandum to the member.  The additional rater makes the comments "through a preponderance of evidence, it was determined TSgt   knowingly submitted her faculty folder for inspection with fraudulent documents-Her demotion was upheld by the XXX BW/CC."  

The AFI states "a report will be referred more than once when a subsequent evaluator gives additional referral ratings or comments."  DPPP states the evaluators have processed the report accurately.  The additional rater comments on the demotion which the rater mentions as "administrative actions."  The information provided by the additional rater only reiterates the comments from the rater and does not provide additional information.  

DPPP notes the signature date of the rater in fact shows a date of 10 Mar 02 when it should show 10 Mar 03 and recommends the report be corrected to reflect such.

The DPPP evaluation is at Exhibit N.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The advisory opinion does not dispute the fact that the report was not referred to her a second time upon the additional rater's referral comments.  DPPPEP does provide further evidence that the report was not processed in accordance with the instruction.  AFI 36-2406, Chapter 3, Table 3.2 states "provide comments that add meaning...Do not repeat comments provided in previous section..."  The comments provided by the additional rater did in fact add information to the report and changed the content/meaning.  The rater made no mention within her comments of evidence to any degree used in determining any inappropriate action on her part, submission and/or inspection of her faculty folder, nor provided any information in regards to who was or was not involved in the administrative demotion proceedings.  In accordance with AFI 36-2406, this information is derogatory in nature, implies behavior incompatible with acceptable standards, violates the guidance in regards to prohibited comments and required the referral procedures to be reaccomplished by the additional rater.  

Her complete response is at Exhibit P.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of an error or injustice warranting corrective action.  After a thorough review of the documentation provided in support of her appeal, along with the evidence of record, the Board majority is not persuaded by her contentions that the contested report is erroneous, unjust, or technically flawed.  The applicant's argument that the report was not processed in accordance with the applicable instruction is duly noted.  However, the Board majority finds no evidence which would substantiate her claim.  Evidence has not been presented which would lead the Board majority to believe that the contested report is not a true and accurate assessment of her performance during the specified period or that the comments contained in the report were in error or contrary to the provisions of the governing instruction.  Therefore, the Board majority agrees with the Air Force office of primary responsibility that the report was processed appropriately and adopts their rationale as the basis for their conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice.  In the absence of evidence to the contrary, the Board majority finds no compelling reason to recommend granting the relief sought in this application.  The Board notes the contested report contains an error with respect to the date the report was signed by the rater, but has been advised the error is administrative in nature and will be corrected accordingly.  

_________________________________________________________________

RECOMMENDATION OF THE BOARD:

A majority of the panel finds insufficient evidence of error or injustice and recommends the application be denied.

_________________________________________________________________

The following members of the Board considered Docket Number BC-2003-03377 in Executive Session on 22 Nov 05, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

By a majority vote, the Board voted to deny the request.  Ms.   voted to correct the record as requested and did not submit a minority report.  The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit L.  Record of Proceedings, dated 8 Oct 04, w/Exhibits.
    Exhibit M.  DD Form 149, dated 12 Aug 05, w/atchs.
    Exhibit N.  Letter, AFPC/DPDPPP, dated 6 Oct 05.
    Exhibit O.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 14 Oct 05.
    Exhibit P.  Letter, Applicant, dated 19 Oct 05.

								

AFBCMR BC-2003-03377
MEMORANDUM FOR	THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS (AFBCMR)
SUBJECT:	AFBCMR Application of 
I have carefully reviewed all aspects of this case and do not agree with the opinion of the majority of the panel that the applicant’s request should be denied in its entirety. 
Applicant requests that her Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) closing 1 March 2003, be declared void and removed from her records and that she be granted supplemental promotion consideration to the grade of master sergeant.  Applicant contends that comments made by the additional rater in Section VI of the report are referral in nature and the report should have been referred to her a second time.  The Air Force Personnel Center, Evaluations Procedures and Appeals Branch, in its evaluation of the applicant’s appeal opined that the comments of the additional rater are not referral in nature noting that in accordance with AFI 36-2406 "A report will be referred more than once when a subsequent evaluator gives additional referral ratings or comments."  The evaluator states that the comments of the additional rater only reiterate the comments of the rater and does not provide additional information.  In her rebuttal to the Air Force evaluation, the applicant counters that in accordance with the comments of the evaluator, the processing of the report is flawed because AFI 36-2406, Table 3.2 states "Do not repeat comments provided in previous sections."  
The Board majority agrees with the evaluator and recommends the applicant’s request be denied in its entirety.  While I am inclined to agree with the Board majority that the applicant’s argument is insufficiently persuasive to warrant removal of the report from her records, I believe that some corrective action is appropriate in this case.  It appears that in her rebuttal to the Air Force evaluation, the applicant has established reasonable doubt as to whether or not the comments of the additional rater are contradictory to the governing instruction and I believe the benefit of any doubt should be resolved in her favor.  Accordingly it is my decision that the questionable comments of the additional rater be stricken from the contested report.

AFBCMR BC-2003-03377

MEMORANDUM FOR THE CHIEF OF STAFF

	Having received and considered the recommendation of the Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records and under the authority of Section 1552, Title 10, United States Code (70A Stat 116), it is directed that:

	The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating to APPLICANT, be corrected to show the Enlisted Performance Report closing 1 March 2003, be amended in Section VI, Additional Rater's Comments, to delete the comment "Through a preponderance of evidence, it was determined XXXXXXX knowingly submitted her faculty folder for inspection with fraudulent documents--Her demotion was upheld by the XXX BW/CC."