RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:		DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2007-03499
		INDEX CODE: 111.02 
				          COUNSEL:  NONE
						HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

The Board substitute her Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) for the period of 16 December 2002 through 15 December 2003 with a replacement EPR for the same period. 

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

Her current EPR does not include a senior rater endorsement due to a time in grade (TIG) miscalculation when the original EPR was prepared.  A hastily re-accomplished EPR was signed without the former chain of command’s senior rater advocacy.  She along with her chain of command had departed permanent change of station.  Her EPR was accomplished under pressure of meeting the senior master sergeant promotion board.  Had the new commander been advised of her duty performance, he would have sought senior rater endorsement and additional EPR comments.  The existing EPR is not fair because proper senior rater endorsement consideration was not given resulting in an erroneous EPR closing-out at the deputy level, instead of the senior rater level.

In support of her request, the applicant submits a copy of her Application for Correction/Removal of Evaluation Reports package with attachments, the original EPR and replacement EPR.

Her complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Data extracted from the Military Personnel Data System (MilPDS) reflects the applicant contracted her initial enlistment in the Regular Air Force on 12 August 1987.

The applicant received an EPR for the period of 16 December 2002 through 15 December 2003.  This report indicated she was not TIG eligible; however, in November 2004, the report was re-accomplished/corrected to show she was TIG eligible.  However a push for senior rater endorsement was not taken by her new leadership.

The applicant has been progressively promoted to the grade of SMSgt and assumed that grade effective and with a date of rank of 1 January 2007.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

APFC/DPSIDEP recommends denial.  AFPC/DPSIDEP states evaluation reports are considered accurate as written unless substantial evidence to the contrary is provided.  As such, they receive exhaustive reviews prior to becoming a matter of record.  Any report can be rewritten to be harder hitting, to provide embellishments, or enhance the ratee's promotion potential.  But, the time to do that is before the report becomes a matter of record, and in this case it was re-accomplished when the error in the TIG eligibility was discovered.  This would have been the time to address the senior rater endorsement level.  DPSIDEP finds it hard to believe that when this correction was made that the senior rater endorsement level was not considered by anyone in the rating chain.  The appeals process does not exist to recreate history or enhance chances for promotion.  It appears this is exactly what the applicant is attempting to do, recreate history.  As such, DPSIDEP is not convinced the contested report is inaccurate as written, and does not support the request to replace it.

The complete DPSIDEP evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit C.

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant responded stating she acted promptly, considering the lack of information from the 27 MSS and the fact that she as well as her rating chain had moved on.  Two colonels acknowledged in writing they were not provided the full details and had the information been provided, they would have sought senior rater endorsement.  It was her understanding that the "certified true copy" containing the EPR TIG error was a matter of record.  Until the 7 November 2004 initial notification, she was unaware that she personally needed to seek senior rater endorsement consideration.  She did her best to handle this situation as it was presented.  She disputes the comment of finding it hard to believe consideration was not made.  In reality, there is pressure to meet deadlines, mistakes happen and are made, and she was "out-of-sight and out-of-mind."  She does not own the process of making her EPR a matter of record except for in this case for which she is requesting a correction through replacement.  The facts are, she was no longer in the original chain of command of the 86 AW.  When notified, she was working under the 27 FW in 2004, which apparently retained no ownership in fixing this error except for receiving the initial notification from AFPC to get the 2003 EPR reaccommplished.  For the record, she is not trying to recreate history.  Rather, she is attempting to correct her EPR for a period where it appears that "two wrongs were made."  She has taken the advice of enlisted mentors to pursue this authorized correction because according to their professional opinion, every bit counts for future job and promotion consideration.  Her command chief for the period in question made comments in one of the emails provided that he fully supports senior rater endorsement and correction of this error and he would have supported the senior rater endorsement if the EPR had come to his office, but it never did.  She believes the suggested replacement EPR to be fair in seeking correction.  She did not seek to embellish her accomplishments or to seek enhancing stratifications.  Her number one goal is to correct the record.  Obviously, she has been promoted since then; however, as mentioned earlier it all counts and she deserves the fair consideration of having a corrected EPR on record for future jobs and career positions.

Her complete response, with attachments, is at Exhibit E.

___________________________________________________________________

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 an error or injustice warranting corrective action.  In this respect, it has been determined by Air Force personnel officials that the contested EPR was indeed prepared in error.  Thus, her previous rating chain was not afforded the opportunity to push for a senior rater endorsement when the report was originally accomplished.  We believe the applicant has established reasonable doubt as to whether or not the contested report is an accurate depiction of her rating chain's assessment of her potential to serve in the next higher grade and it is our opinion that the benefit of any doubt in this matter should be resolved in her favor.  Accordingly, we believe the appropriate action to take in this case is to replace the contested report with the report provided.  Since we are unable to ascertain whether or not the information contained in the corrected report is significant enough to warrant her selection for promotion during the 05E8 cycle, we believe that determination should be placed in the hands of duly appointed promotion board members.  Accordingly, it is our opinion that her corrected record should be placed before a Supplemental Promotion Board for consideration for the 05E8 promotion cycle.  Therefore, we recommend her records be corrected as indicated below. 

________________________________________________________________

RECOMMENDATION OF THE BOARD:

The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating to APPLICANT be be corrected to show that her AF Form 911, Senior Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) rendered for the period 16 December 2002 through 15 December 2003, be declared void and replaced with the attached EPR reflecting senior rater endorsement.

It is further recommended that she be provided supplemental consideration for promotion to the grade of senior master sergeant (E-8) for promotion cycle 05E8.

If AFPC discovers any adverse factors during or subsequent to supplemental consideration that are separate and apart, and unrelated to the issues involved in this application, that would have rendered the individual ineligible for the promotion, such information will be documented and presented to the Board for a final determination on the individual’s qualification for the promotion.

If supplemental promotion consideration results in the selection for promotion to the higher grade, immediately after such promotion the records shall be corrected to show that she was promoted to the higher grade on the date of rank established by the supplemental promotion and that she is entitled to all pay, allowances, and benefits of such grade as of that date.

________________________________________________________________

The following members of the Board considered this application in Executive Session on 30 January 2008, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

All members voted to correct the records, as recommended.  The following documentary evidence pertaining to Docket Number BC-2007-03499 was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 15 October 2007, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Available Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPDIDEP, dated 19 November 2007.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 14 December 2007.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, Applicant, dated 9 January 2008, w/atchs.

									 

AFBCMR BC-2007-03499

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:

		a.  Her AF Form 911, Senior Enlisted Performance Report (EPR), rendered for the period 16 December 2002 through 15 December 2003, be, and hereby is,  declared void and replaced with the attached EPR reflecting senior rater endorsement.

		b.  The AF Form 911, Senior Enlisted Performance Report (EPR), , rendered for the period 16 December 2002 through 15 December 2003, was accepted for file in her Senior NCO selection folder on 30 January 2005.

	It is further recommended that she be provided supplemental consideration for promotion to the grade of senior master sergeant (E-8) for promotion cycle 05E8.

	If AFPC discovers any adverse factors during or subsequent to supplemental consideration that are separate and apart, and unrelated to the issues involved in this application, that would have rendered the individual ineligible for the promotion, such information will be documented and presented to the Board for a final determination on the individual’s qualification for the promotion.

	If supplemental promotion consideration results in the selection for promotion to the higher grade, immediately after such promotion the records shall be corrected to show that she was promoted to the higher grade on the date of rank established by the supplemental promotion and that she is entitled to all pay, allowances, and benefits of such grade as of that date.

               

Attachment:
EPR closing 15 December 2003