RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2007-02691
		INDEX CODE:  111.02

		COUNSEL:  XXXXXXXXXX

		HEARING DESIRED:  YES

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

Her Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) rendered for the period 28 Jun 05 through 22 May 06 be declared void and removed from her records.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The contested report unfairly magnifies one misstep and negatively misrepresents a highly competitive and outstanding career.

In support of her appeal, the applicant provides a counsel’s brief, documentation pertaining to a criminal complaint, supportive statements, extracts from her military personnel records, photographs, and other documents associated with the matter under review.

Applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Information extracted from the Personnel Data System (PDS) indicates the applicant is currently serving on active duty in the grade of staff sergeant, with a date of rank (DOR) of 1 Oct 02.  Her Total Active Federal Military Service Date (TAFMSD) is 12 Dec 96.

Applicant's EPR profile follows: 

     PERIOD ENDING                            EVALUATION 

	11 Aug 98		4
	11 Aug 99		4
	11 Aug 00		5
	22 Sep 01		4
	22 Sep 02		5
	22 Sep 03		5
	25 Jun 04		5
	27 Jun 05		5
  *	22 May 06		4 (Referral)
	22 May 07		5

* Contested report.

The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the letter prepared by the appropriate office of the Air Force.  

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPSIDEP recommends denial indicating the evidence provided does not substantiate the accuracy of what happened, when it happened and what punishment she received for which incident.  They could only speculate based on the contested report and by what the applicant has stated in her application.  It seems that the applicant had been accused of spousal abuse during an altercation with her spouse and received an Article 15. Additionally, there was an altercation with an employee at a car wash after the employee allegedly stole her wedding ring, for which she received a Letter of Reprimand (LOR).  Later, separation proceedings were brought up against her and the discharge board found that she was the victim and not the assailant in the spousal abuse charge and recommended retention.  However, they did find that she brought discredit upon the Air Force in the car wash incident and she voluntarily entered an Anger Management class which she successfully completed.  Although the applicant does not go into much detail as to how this affected the outcome of the contested report, she provided a statement from her doctor substantiating that she suffered from Post‑Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) from the spousal abuse and being at ground zero on 11 Sep 01 (9/11), that she was progressing satisfactorily, and that it does not affect her duty performance.  They concede the applicant was the victim and not the perpetrator in the domestic dispute; she suffered from PTSD; and she has an otherwise outstanding record.  However, the incidents did take place, and she received an Article 15 and an LOR.  Although she may feel the evaluators have over stressed an isolated incident, or a short period of substandard performance or conduct, the evaluators are obliged to consider such incidents, their significance, and the frequency with which they occurred in assessing performance and potential.  Only the evaluators know how much an incident influenced the report.  Therefore, the opinions of individuals outside the rating chain are not relevant.  Until the Article 15 and LOR are set aside, the report remains accurate and the rater's comments on the misconduct are appropriate.

A complete copy of the AFPC/DPSIDEP evaluation is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to applicant on 18 Apr 08 for review and response within 30 days.  As of this date, no response has been received by this office (Exhibit D).

_________________________________________________________________

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 did not find it sufficiently persuasive to override the rationale expressed by the Air Force office of primary responsibility (OPR).  We also note the applicant provided no rating chain support.  In our view, these individuals would have been in the best position to evaluate her performance, and we find no evidence the applicant’s evaluators were unable to render a fair and honest evaluation of her performance.  In view of the foregoing, and in the absence of sufficient evidence the contested report was not an accurate assessment of her performance when originally prepared, we adopt the OPR’s rationale and conclude that no basis exists to recommend granting the relief sought in this application

4.  The applicant's 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 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 AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2007-02691 in Executive Session on 21 May 08, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 13 Aug 07, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPSIDEP, dated 7 Mar 08.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 18 Apr 08.