RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2008-01852
		INDEX CODE:  111.05

		COUNSEL:  NOT INDICATED

		HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

The AF IMT Form 910, Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) closing-out on 16 Jul 07, be replaced or voided and removed from her record.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

Her EPR was marked down because she failed her physical fitness test.  She was recently diagnosed with a pinched nerve in her lower back, and believes that if her condition was diagnosed earlier she would not have failed her physical fitness test.  After she received treatment for her condition, she retested using the ergonomic test and was able to pass.

In support of her request, the applicant provides two copies of her AF Form 422, Physical Profile Serial Report, and a copy of an AF IMT 910, Enlisted Performance Report and medical documentation relating to her back injury.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant received an EPR closing-out on 16 Jul 07, with an overall rating of “4”.  The report was marked down in one area, “How well does ratee comply with standards?”

Her EPR profile reflects the following:

	PERIOD ENDING	EVALUATION OF POTENTIAL

	       15 Jan 03		5
	       15 Jan 04		5

Her EPR profile continues:

	PERIOD ENDING	EVALUATION OF POTENTIAL

	       15 Jan 05		5
	       16 Jul 05		5
	       16 Jul 06		5
	     **16 Jul 07		4

** Contested report

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPSIDEP recommends denial and states in part, that since the applicant did not file an appeal through the Evaluation Reports Appeals Board (ERAB) under the provision of AFI 36-2401, Correcting Officer and Enlisted Evaluation Reports, her case was forwarded to them for evaluation.  The ERAB recommends denial.

The fact that she failed her physical fitness test during the reporting period of the contested report alone, justified the evaluators marking down the report.  

Under current procedures for the electronic version of the AF Form 910, failure of a physical fitness test is an automatic referral report, and had her report closed-out a month later, it could have been a referral depending on her fitness status as of the close-out date of the report.  Instead, she was fortunate enough to have a favorable report.  Since she provided no statements from the evaluators, there is no evidence that they marked her down strictly based on her physical fitness test failure.

The delay in her medical diagnosis does not make the report inaccurate; nor does it justify changing or voiding a report.  Based on the medical information known at the time, and the fact that she was in a failed status on the close-out date of the report, a mark down on her EPR was justified.  Unfortunately, the Air Force is not in the habit of changing evaluations because of a medical condition that may have, could have, or should have, been diagnosed earlier.

The complete DPSIDEP evaluation is at Exhibit C.

AFPC/DPSOE defers to the recommendation of AFPC/DPSIDEP regarding the applicant’s request to have the EPR removed or rewritten.  

The first time the contested report will be used in the promotion process is cycle 09E6.

The complete AFPC/DPSOE evaluation is at Exhibit D. 

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on 25 Jul 08, for review and comment within 30 days.  As of this date, no response has been received by this office. 

_________________________________________________________________

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.  After a thorough review of the applicant’s submission and the available evidence of record, we are not persuaded the applicant should be awarded the requested relief.  We took notice of the complete submission in judging the merits of the case; however, we agree with the opinions and recommendations of the Air Force offices 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 an injustice.  In the absence of persuasive evidence to the contrary, we find no compelling basis to recommend granting the relief sought in this application.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD RECOMMENDS 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-2008-01852 in Executive Session on 16 Dec 08, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

			XXXXXXXXXX, Panel Chair
			XXXXXXXXXX, Member
			XXXXXXXXXX, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered under AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2008-01852:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 7 May 08, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant’s Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  Memo, AFPC/DPSIDEP, dated 26 Jun 08.
   Exhibit D.  Memo, AFPC/DPSOE, dated 8 Jul 08.
   Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 25 Jul 08.

                                   XXXXXXXXXX
                                   Panel Chair