RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2007-02545
		INDEX CODE:  110.02
 		COUNSEL:  NONE
		HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His enlisted performance report (EPR) with a close-out date of  10 Nov 04 be upgraded or removed from his records.

Examiner’s Note: The applicant does not have an EPR with a close-out date of 10 Nov 04.  The EPR for this period was 13 Nov 03 to    12 Nov 04.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

There was an insufficient record of feedback for the entire rating period.

There was coercion by his superiors and there was a false/forged Letter of Counseling (LOC) in his records.

His superior admitted to forging the LOC to justify changing his EPR from a “5” rating to a “4” rating.
 
In support of his request, the applicant provided statements in his own behalf, a chronological record of events, copies of his EPRs, letters of support, a copy of his AF IMT 174, Record of Individual Counseling, dated 29 Oct 04, a memorandum for record, dated 10 Aug 04, a Kessler Air Force Base Form 117, Enlisted Performance Report Form, a personnel change action worksheet, copies of e-mails, and an AF IMT 931, Performance Feedback Worksheet. 

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant is currently serving in the Regular Air Force in the grade of staff sergeant. 

Records indicate the applicant was given a LOC in Oct 04 without his knowledge.  The LOC was later investigated and determined to be forged. 

The applicant did not file an appeal through the Evaluation Reports Appeal Board (ERAB) under the provisions of AFI 36-2401, Correcting Officer and Enlisted Performance Reports; however it was forwarded to the ERAB and they denied relief because they were not convinced the report was inaccurate based on the evidence provided.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPSIDEP recommends denial.  The applicant did not provide any evidence that supports his evaluators were coerced into downgrading his EPR.  DPSIDEP states they requested he provide statements from the evaluators.  The applicant replied back stating the commander retired and the evaluators denied any knowledge of the situation.  DPSIDEP states that evidence shows the applicant received some form of feedback including at least two written feedbacks; one on 4 May 04 and the other on 4 Nov 04.

DPSIDEP states that Air Force policy is that an evaluation report is accurate as written when it becomes a matter of record.  To effectively challenge an EPR, it is necessary to hear from all the members of the rating chain—not only for support, but also for clarification/explanation.  The applicant failed to provide any information/support from the rating chain on the contested EPR.  Evidence shows that there were some issues, including the LOR, which would more than support a less than perfect rating.

The complete AFPC/DPSIDEP opinion is at Exhibit C. 

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 18 Apr 08 for review and comment within 30 days (Exhibit D).  As of this date, this office has not received a 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.  We took notice of the applicant's 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 their rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice.  Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no compelling basis to recommend granting the relief sought in this application.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:

The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of material error or injustice; that the application was denied without a personal appearance; and that the application will only be reconsidered upon the submission of newly discovered relevant evidence not considered with this application.

_________________________________________________________________

The following members of the Board considered Docket Number BC-2007-02545 Executive Session on 29 May 2008 provisions of AFI 36-2603:

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, w/atchs, dated 21 Nov 06.
    Exhibit B.  Enlisted Performance Reports.
    Exhibit C.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPSIDEP, dated 11 Apr 08 
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 18 Apr 08.