RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2010-01551 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) for the period 2 July 2007 through 1 July 2008 be corrected in Section V, Overall Performance Assessment, to include markings under the Section titled “Truly Among the Best (5),” for the Rater’s assessment and the Additional Rater’s assessment. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: While using her records to prepare a decoration package, it was noticed that her 2008 EPR had been closed out without any markings in Section V on the back of the form. The report was “Firewall 5s” and needs to be corrected before she retires. In support of her application, the applicant provides a copy of the contested EPR, and her retirement order. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. _________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant retired from the Regular Air Force effective 31 August 2010 in the grade of master sergeant (E-7). She served 23 years, 6 months, and 27 days on active duty. The following is a resume of the applicant’s performance ratings: PERIOD ENDING OVERALL EVALUATION 3 Feb 00 (SSgt) 5 2 Jun 00 5 6 Jun 01 5 6 Jun 02 5 17 Jan 03 (TSgt) 5 17 Jan 04 5 27 Aug 04 5 27 Aug 05 5 27 Aug 06 5 1 Jul 07 5 PERIOD ENDING OVERALL EVALUATION 1 Jul 08* Not Indicated * Contested report _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSIDEP recommends denial. DPSIDEP states the applicant did not file an appeal through the Evaluation Reports and Appeals Board (ERAB) under the provisions of Air Force Instruction 36- 2401, Correcting Officer and Enlisted Evaluation Reports; however, the ERAB reviewed the applicant’s request and recommended denial as they were not convinced the contested report was inaccurate or unjust. On 9 June 2010, DPSIDEP returned the applicant’s package and requested she obtain a statement from her evaluators to verify what the rating is since one was not provided. However, they have not received a response from the applicant. DPSIDEP indicates the applicant blames her Squadron Personnel Technician and AFPC for the error, although the applicant reviewed and signed the EPR herself. Since the EPR is not completed in accordance with Air Force Instruction 36-2406 and the applicant has failed to provide the required documentation, the EPR should be removed and replaced with an Air Force Form 77, Letter of Evaluation, with the following statement “Report for the period 2 July 2007 through 1 July 2008 is not available for administrative reasons.” DPSIDEP indicates the Military Personnel System (MilPDS) reflects the contested report has an overall rating of “5.” The DPPPR evaluation is at Exhibit B. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 15 October 2010 for review and response 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 an injustice. We note the applicant was asked to provide a statement from her evaluators to verify what the rating should be on the contested report since one was not provided. However, the applicant has not responded. We also note AFPC/DPSIDEP’s recommendation that since the EPR in question was not completed in accordance with the governing instruction, it should be removed and replaced with an AF Form 77. We disagree. Since the report is now a matter of record and the applicant has since retired, we believe the contested report to be more beneficial to the applicant as written than replacing it with an Air Force Form 77. In addition, while we note MilPDS reflects a numerical rating of “5” as the overall performance assessment as contended by the applicant, we are not inclined to correct the report absent support from the rating chain. Accordingly, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no 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-2010-01551 in Executive Session on 19 January 2011, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: The following documentary evidence was considered in connection with AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2010-01551: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 19 Apr 2010, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPSIDEP, dated 16 Sep 10. Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 15 Oct 10.