RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2010-00663 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 1. Her Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) ending 12 December 2008, be changed to an overall rating of “3” or higher. 2. Her Unfavorable Information File (UIF) be removed from her records. 3. Her Letter of Reprimand (LOR) be removed from her record. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: She received a Letter of Reprimand (LOR) in September 2008 and an UIF in October 2008 for not completing an on-line training record by a specific date. These actions resulted in her receiving an overall rating of “2” on her EPR. She should not have received the LOR because she was unable to register for the on-line training. She tried several times to contact the point of contact (POC) to register for training; however, because of his busy schedule she was unable to resolve the matter. On one occasion, the POC specifically told her not to worry about being registered because her training folder had been misplaced. The misplacement of her training folder, which prevented her from registering for training, was beyond her control; however, she was given a LOR for not completing the task. The information in the LOR that stated she was a day-shift worker was false because she had been an evening shift worker for six months or longer. She was never told if the rebuttal to the LOR was accepted or rejected. In support of her request, the applicant provides a personal statement, copies of her DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty and a statement from her Education and Training Noncommissioned Officer in charge. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. ________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 12 April 2000 and was progressively promoted to the grade of staff sergeant. On 12 December 2008, the applicant was issued a referral EPR because she demonstrated a pattern of misconduct and failed to meet deployed readiness deadlines. These violations resulted in a LOR/UIF being established by the commander. On 12 December 2008, the applicant acknowledged receipt of the letter of notification for the referral EPR and on 22 December 2008, she submitted comments on her own behalf. The applicant did not file an appeal through the Evaluation Reports Appeals Board (ERAB) under the provisions of AFI 36- 2401, Correcting Officer and Enlisted Evaluation Reports. The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application, extracted from the applicant’s military records are contained in the letters prepared by the appropriate offices of the Air Force at Exhibits C, D, and E. On 2 July 2009, the applicant was honorably discharged in the grade of staff sergeant after serving 8 years, 10 months and 26 days of total active military service. ________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSIMC recommends denial. DPSIMC states that on 8 March 2010, their office requested that the applicant provide a copy of the LOR/UIF to substantiate her claim; however, she failed to respond. The applicant believes the LOR/UIF was unjust; however, the UIF program is a commander’s program and can be used at his/her discretion. The complete DPSIMC evaluation is at Exhibit C. AFPC/DPSID recommends denial. DPSID states that the applicant contends her overall rating of “2” on her EPR was a result of an LOR/UIF; however, she provides no compelling evidence to substantiate her claim. Evaluators are charged with assessing performance and documenting that performance for a specific period of time. Therefore, an evaluation report is considered to represent the rating chain’s best judgment at the time it is completed. DPSID contends that once a report is accepted for file, only strong evidence to the contrary warrants correction or removal from an individual’s record. The burden of proof is on the applicant. The applicant has not substantiated that the contested report was not rendered in good faith by all evaluations based on knowledge available at the time. The complete DPSID evaluation is at Exhibit D. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on 30 July 2010 for review and comment within 30 days. As of this date, this office has received no response (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. Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of an error or an injustice. After thoroughly reviewing all of the evidence provided, we are not persuaded the contested report is inaccurate for the period in question. Other than her own assertions, we have seen no evidence by the applicant that would lead us to believe the report is inappropriate, or that the report is technically flawed. Therefore, 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 the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, the applicant's request is not favorably considered. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of a 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- 2010-00663 in Executive Session on 7 October 2010, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: The following documentary evidence pertaining to Docket Number BC-2010-00663 was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 5 Feb 10, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Applicant’s Master Personnel Record. Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPSIM, dated 8 Mar 10. Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/DPSIMC, undated. Exhibit E. Letter, AFPC/DPSID, 5 Jul 10. Exhibit F. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 30 July 2010.