RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBERS: BC-2010-01284 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His Enlisted Performance Report (EPR), for the period 16 December 2008 through 15 December 2009, be voided and removed from his record. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: A copy of his referral EPR was not made available to him until he received a copy through his Area Defense Counsel. The copy he received was missing a date for the performance feedback; however, the EPR he signed, and is now a matter of record has a Performance Feedback date reflected. Had he received a performance feedback, he would have an original Air Force Form 931, Performance Feedback Worksheet (PFW). In addition, he had been removed from the position of Flight Kitchen Manager; therefore, the report contains an incorrect duty title and duties. In support of his appeal, the applicant provides copies of a fax transmission, memorandums for record (MFRs), a Letter of Reprimand (LOR), response to the LOR, a referral EPR with cover memorandum, his response to the referral EPR, character references, and a Letter of Evaluation. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. _________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: According to the military personnel data system, the applicant is currently serving on active duty in the grade of technical sergeant (E-6) with a date of rank of 1 December 2004. He has a Total Active Federal Military Service Date of 21 March 1991 and a projected date of separation of 24 April 2011. The following is a resume of the applicant’s EPR profile: PERIOD ENDING PROMOTION RECOMMENDATION 14 Apr 01 (SSgt) 5 15 Dec 02 4 15 Dec 03 4 15 Dec 04 4 15 Dec 05 (TSgt) 5 15 Dec 06 4 18 Sep 07 2 15 Dec 08 4 15 Dec 09* 2 * Contested report _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSIDEP recommends denial. DPSIDEP states the applicant filed several appeals through the Evaluation Reports Appeal Board (ERAB) under the provisions of Air Force Instruction 36-2401, Correcting Officer and Enlisted Evaluation Reports; however, the ERAB was not convinced the contested report was inaccurate or unjust and denied relief. The applicant received an LOR and was removed from the position of Noncommissioned Officer in Charge (NCOIC) of the Flight Kitchen and duties associated with Processing Deployment Functions (PDF) line in January 2009. His EPR closed out in December 2009. The MFR the applicant provides removing him from the position, indicates he was removed as NCOIC; it does not indicate Flight Kitchen Manager. However, presuming it was the same thing, he has provided no evidence to show what his actual duty title was as of the close-out date of the contested EPR. His duty title and duties could have changed several times between January 2009 and December 2009; and/or he could have even been placed back into the position. DPSIDEP indicates that as for the feedback date, the applicant implies the feedback was not accomplished because he did not have the original PFW. However, he does not state the feedback was not provided. Furthermore, only the rater can confirm whether or not feedback was not accomplished. The applicant would have to provide a statement from the rater that feedback was not accomplished; and even then, DPSIDEP would simply remove the date and add the statement “Feedback was not accomplished IAW AFI 36- 2406, paragraph 2.10.” Lack of feedback is not grounds to void a report. DPSIDEP will not void a report when the error or injustice can be corrected administratively; and in this case, all corrective actions requested could be administratively corrected with the correct supporting documentation. DPSIDEP states the applicant has not shown a clear error or injustice; however, if he can provide a statement from his evaluator that the information is incorrect, they would reconsider his request. The complete DPSIDEP evaluation is at Exhibit B. AFPC/DPSOE indicates that since DPSIDEP has determined the contested referral report is accurate as written; they defer to their recommendation. DPSOE states that the first time the applicant’s contested report would have been considered in the promotion process was cycle 10E7 to master sergeant. However, the fact the EPR was a referral rendered him ineligible for consideration for promotion in accordance with Air Force Instruction 36-2502, Tale 1.1, Rule 22. Should the Board decide to remove the report, the applicant would be entitled to supplemental promotion consideration beginning with cycle 10E7. The complete DPSOE evaluation is at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on 16 July 2010, for review and comment within 30 days. As of this date, this office has received no 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 an error or injustice. We took notice of the applicant's 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 injustice. Therefore, in the absence of evidence showing the contested report is an inaccurate depiction of his performance during the rating period in question, 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 AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2010-01284 in Executive Session on 18 November 2010, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: , Panel Chair , Member , Member The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2010-01284 was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 22 Mar 10, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Letter, AFPC/DPSIDEP, dated 3 Jun 10. Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPSOE, dated 21 Jun 10. Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 16 Jul 10. Panel Chair