RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2007-01057
		INDEX CODE:  111.05
		
		COUNSEL:  NONE
		HEARING DESIRED:  YES

MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:  6 OCTOBER 2008

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) for the period 5 May 05 through 14 Feb 06 be voided and removed from his records.

Examiner’s Note:  The report actually covers the period 1 May 05 through 21 Feb 06.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

His commanding officer unjustly submitted an evaluation report on his performance that placed undue emphasis on three isolated incidents that do not correspond with the activities that occurred, nor did the report provide an accurate assessment of his performance and abilities.  

The three key sequences leading to his contested evaluation report, hinged on a cleared IG complaint, an email request for assistance to his peers, and an open Commander Directed Investigation (CDI) to determine if he was derelict in his duties for which he was exonerated.  As a result of these instances, he lost a highly prestigious award, a service decoration, all opportunity for career advancement, and was saddled with an evaluation report based on the aforementioned actions.  He is a First Sergeant, continually dedicated to the highest elements of loyalty, integrity, and service to his Nation and his commanding officers.

He believes the actions and impact to his career are irrevocable and that even if his request was approved, it will still likely result in minimal competitiveness amongst his peers.

In support of his request, applicant provided his personal statement, a copy of the contested EPR, an unsigned AF Form 1206, Nomination for Award, copies of his initial and midterm performance feedback worksheets, an unsigned AF Form 1168, Statement of Suspect/Witness/Complainant, various emails regarding dormitory washers and dryers, Letter of Counseling (LOC), dated 17 Jan 05, w/response, copy of his outlook calendar, email regarding request to hire a deputy first sergeant, copies of previous EPRs, and a copy of the ERAB decision on his appeal.

The applicant's complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant is currently serving on active duty in the grade of senior master sergeant (E-8) with a date of rank of 1 Dec 03.  He has a total active federal military service date of 12 Jun 81 and a projected date for voluntary retirement of 31 Oct 07.  

Applicant’s performance profile follows:

	PERIOD ENDING				OVERALL RATING

	  15 Sep 97					5
	  15 Sep 98					5
	  15 Sep 99					5
	  11 Sep 00					5
	  12 Jul 01					5
	  12 Jul 02					5
	   9 May 03					5
	   9 May 04					5
	  30 Apr 05					5
	  21 Feb 06*					5

*Contested Report

The applicant submitted an appeal to the Evaluation Reports Appeal Board (ERAB) requesting the report be removed from his records; however, it was denied due to lack of supporting documentation.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPPEP recommends denial.  They state since an evaluation report is considered to represent the rating chain’s best judgment at the time it is rendered and, once it is accepted for file, only strong evidence to the contrary warrants removal from an individual’s records.  The burden of proof is on the applicant, and unfortunately he has not substantiated the contested EPR was inaccurate or unjust as written.  

The applicant refers to an Inspector General (IG) complaint for abuse of power that was made on him by an enlisted member of his squadron.  No documentation was provided with regard to the IG complaint.  A Commander Directed Investigation (CDI) was initiated by the MSG commander.  He states that he was exonerated of the allegation; however, although his account of what happened seems to support exoneration, he provided no supporting evidence that he was in fact exonerated.

The applicant refers to a LOC he received for negatively interacting with the Staff Judge Advocate (SJA).  His response to the LOC thoroughly explains what led up to the LOC.  Although the applicant’s account of what happened leads them to believe that the situation was over exaggerated, he provided no evidence to support it either way.

The applicant refers to an incident with a member in his squadron regarding an unprofessional relationship.  A seven-page summary was submitted to him as the First Sergeant and he states that he was investigating the matter further so he could give the commander the most up-to-date information on the situation.  Unfortunately, the commander found out about the statement before the applicant had a chance to brief him, and that the applicant believes that the commander thought he was withholding information.  Since it is normal for a First Sergeant to investigate all the facts before briefing a commander, his account leads them to believe that the situation was over exaggerated.  Again however, he provided no evidence to support his allegation. 

The applicant references many individuals throughout his appeal; several who could have possibly substantiated his alleged injustice.  He contends that the commander used these three incidents for the basis of his EPR which he views as having a negative career impact, but provided no evidence that the commander was in fact biased or coerced or that he unjustly prepared the report.  Further, DPPPEP gave the applicant the opportunity to provide additional documentation, but he was unable to provide any.

The AFPC/DPPPEP evaluation is at Exhibit C.

AFPC/DPPPWB has deferred to AFPC/DPPPE recommendation regarding the removal of applicant’s EPR; however, they have addressed the supplemental promotion consideration issue should the Board grant his request.  DPPPE states the first time the contested report would have normally been considered in the promotion process was cycle 06E9 to CMSgt; however, the applicant rendered himself ineligible for promotion consideration on 7 Aug 06 when he signed an AF Form 1566, WAPS Test Verification,  refusing to test for cycle 06E9.  Applicant should not be provided supplemental consideration as he was ineligible under AFI 36-2502, Table 1.1, Rule 8 (declined to test).  

The AFPC/DPPPWB evaluation, with attachment, is at Exhibit D.

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on 31 Aug 07 for review and comment within 30 days.  As of this date, a response has not been received.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

1.  The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by existing law or regulations.

2.  The application was timely filed.

3.  Sufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of error or injustice.  After thoroughly reviewing the evidence of record, and the EPR in question, we note the EPR appears to be a complete deviation from his last several EPRs, and the markdowns on his performance uncharacteristic, judging from the other EPRs.  We understand a report is rendered to evaluate a member’s performance during a particular rating period, and is considered to represent the rating chain’s best judgment at that time.  However, we believe the drastic change in his duty performance during this rating period could have possibly been caused by a personality conflict between the member and his rater.  That said we believe any doubt should be resolved in the applicant’s favor.  We note that the applicant has over 26 years of exemplary service in the Air Force, with over eight years as a First Sergeant.  Additionally, we note the applicant has a projected retirement date of 31 Oct 07, and removing his EPR will have no affect on his military career.  Therefore, to remove the possibility of injustice the EPR may have on applicant’s future prospects outside the military, we believe the report should be removed.  Therefore, we recommend the 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 to show that the Senior Enlisted Performance Report (MSgt thru CMSgt), AF IMT 911, rendered for the period 1 May 2005 through 21 February 2006 be, and hereby is, declared void and removed from his records.

_________________________________________________________________

The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2007-01057 in Executive Session on 16 October 2007, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

XXXXXXXXXX, Panel Chair
XXXXXXXXXX, Member
XXXXXXXXXX, Member

All members voted to correct the records, as recommended.  The following documentary evidence pertaining to Docket Number       BC-2007-01057 was considered:

     Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 30 Mar 07, w/atchs.
     Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
     Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPEP, dated 3 Aug 07.
     Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPWB, dated 31 May 07, w/atch.
     Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 31 Aug 07.

                                   XXXXXXXXXX
                                   Panel Chair