RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2004-00637
		INDEX CODE:  111.02
		COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED:  YES

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

Her Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) rendered for the period 10 Nov 01 through 12 Sep 02, be removed from her records.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

When the EPR was referred to her the overall rating was "4" but when it was finalized the overall rating was "3."  The EPR should have been referred to her twice.  The EPR accuses her of knowing about fraternization and not reporting it, when in fact she did not know anything about it.  

In support of her request, applicant provided documentation associated with her Inspector General (IG) appeal, a witness statement; a copy of her AF Form 418, Selective Reenlistment Program Consideration; a draft EPR closing 28 Jan 03, and her official use request.  Her complete submission, with attachments is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant contracted her initial enlistment in the Regular Air Force on 13 Sep 95.  She has been progressively promoted to the grade of staff sergeant having assumed that grade effective and with a date of rank of 1 Feb 01.  

The following is a resume of her EPR profile:

	Period Ending	Promotion Recommendation

		28 Jan 03				5
		12 Sep 02				3*
		09 Nov 01				5
		09 Nov 00				5
		09 Nov 99				5
		14 Feb 99				5
		14 Feb 98				5
		14 Feb 97				5

* - Contested Report

The applicant submitted an appeal to the Evaluation Reports Appeal Board (ERAB).  The ERAB denied her request based on lack of evidence to show the report was "4" when it was initially referred to her.  

On 25 Nov 02, applicant requested voluntary separation under the provisions of AFI 36-3208 for miscellaneous reasons.  Her request was approved and she was honorably discharged on 1 Feb 03.  She served 7 years, 4 months, and 19 days on active duty.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPPE recommends denial of the applicant's request to void the report; however, recommends the ratings in section IV be corrected to reflect "4" for both the rater and additional rater.  DPPAE states the IG investigation, which was not part of the ERAB package, substantiated the referral process was mishandled.  The IG investigation states there was an additional referral comment added to Section VI, specifically, "her leadership and followership skills need improvement."  This comment is not considered to be referral in nature because it reemphasizes what the rater has already stated in Section IV.  The mere fact that an evaluator believes skills of a ratee need improvement does not automatically mean the report must be referred.  

In support of her appeal, she provided a statement from an airman who was part of the fraternization allegation as well as an AF Form 418.  The statement is not new.  The evaluators were already aware of it when they rendered the EPR and based on their review of the circumstances, believed further action was required.  The issue was thoroughly investigated and she was subsequently given a Letter of Reprimand and an Unfavorable Information File was established.  The AF Form 418 was completed by different evaluators several months after the contested report had closed.  In fact, the incidents in question, while appropriate to document on a performance report, will not usually result in nonrecomendation for retention.  

DPPPE believes voiding the entire report is not the best course of action.  Since the original ratings were "4" before they were given incorrect information, it is only logical to correct the ratings versus voiding the report.  Correcting the rating to "4" makes the report accurate based on the intended rating and there is not sufficient documentation to conclude the remaining report was not a fair and accurate assessment.  The applicant's own rebuttal strongly validates that once the rating is corrected to a "4" the report is an accurate assessment as written.  

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 2 Apr 04 for review and comment within 30 days.  As of this date, this office has received no response.

_________________________________________________________________

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 error or injustice that would warrant voidance of the contested report.  Evidence has not been presented which would lead us to believe that the contested report is not an accurate depiction of the applicant's performance and demonstrated potential during the period in question.  The applicant contends that the additional rater's comment in Section VI of the contested report, that states "...her leadership and followership skills need improvement" is referral in nature and the report should have been referred to her a second time.  However, after a thorough review of the evidence presented, it is our opinion that the aforementioned comment is in fact not referral in nature, but it appears to be merely a reemphasis of the comments made by the rater.  

4.  Notwithstanding the above, sufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of an error with respect to the Promotion Recommendation contained in the report.  It appears that the report was initially referred to the applicant with a "4" marked as the Promotion Recommendation.  However, when the report was finalized the final rating was "3."  We agree with the Air Force's determination that since the rater and additional rater's original markings were "4" prior to being provided incorrect information, the fairest and most equitable resolution would be to correct the report to reflect a rating of "4."  Therefore, we recommend her records be corrected as indicated below.  
_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT:

The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating to APPLICANT be corrected as follows:  AF Form 910, Enlisted Performance Report, rendered for the period 10 November 2001 through 12 September 2002, amend in Section IV, Promotion Recommendation, to reflect that a rating of "4" was rendered by the rater and additional rater, rather than a rating of "3."

_________________________________________________________________

The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2004-00637 in Executive Session on 6 May 04, under the provisions of AFI 36‑2603:

All members voted to correct the records, as recommended.  The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 12 Nov 03, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPE, dated 26 Mar 04, w/atchs.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 2 Apr 04.

					

AFBCMR BC-2004-00637

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 that the AF Form 910, Enlisted Performance Report, rendered for the period 10 November 2001 through 12 September 2002, be amended in Section IV, Promotion Recommendation, to reflect that a rating of "4" was rendered by the rater and additional rater, rather than a rating of "3."