RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2010-03630 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His AF Form 910, Enlisted Performance Report (AB through TSgt) (EPR), rendered for the period 16 Mar 09 through 15 Mar 10 be replaced. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: The contested report on file in his master personnel record was not the final version. In support of his request, the applicant provides copies of the contested report, a revised AF Form 910, and two letters of support. The applicant's complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. _________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant is presently serving in the Regular Air Force in the grade of senior airman. On 27 Aug 09, the applicant received an Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice Nonjudicial Punishment, for using his Government Travel Card for unauthorized purposes. His punishment consisted of a forfeiture of $1,063 pay for two months, seven days of extra duty, and a reprimand. A resume of the applicant’s EPRs follows: CLOSEOUT DATE OVERALL RATING 15 Oct 05 3 15 Oct 06 5 30 Jun 07 5 15 Mar 08 5 15 Mar 09 5 *15 Mar 10 4 *Contested report. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: HQ AFPC/DPSIDEP recommends denial. DPSIDEP states there is no evidence of an error or injustice and the applicant has failed to provide any information or support from the original rater on the contested report. Further, Air Force policy states an evaluation report is accurate as written when it becomes a matter of record and is considered to represent the rating chain’s best judgment at the time a report is rendered. Once a report is accepted for file, only strong evidence to the contrary warrants correction or removal from an individual’s record. To effectively challenge an EPR, it is necessary to hear from all the members of the rating chain—not only for support, but also for clarification or explanation. Moreover, there is no letter stating that the Article 15 was set aside, mitigated, etc. It appears the incident still took place and the original rater consciously thought that it was grave enough to report it on the subject report. The applicant filed an appeal through the Evaluation Reports Appeals Board (ERAB); however, the ERAB was not convinced the contested report was unjust or wrong and denied the requested relief. The complete HQ AFPC/DPSIDEP evaluation is at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 17 Dec 10 for review and comment within 30 days (Exhibit D). As of this date, this office has not received a 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 careful notice of the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of the case; however, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of the Air Force office of primary responsibility and adopt its rationale as the basis for our conclusion the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice. We do not find his assertions, in and by themselves, sufficiently persuasive in this matter. Additionally, we are not persuaded by the evidence provided that the contested report is not a true and accurate assessment of his demonstrated potential during the specified time period. In the absence of persuasive 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 Docket Number BC-2010-03630 in Executive Session on 24 February 2011, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: The following documentary evidence was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 1 Sep 10, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Letter, HQ AFPC/DPSIDEP, dated 12 Nov 10. Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 17 Dec 10.