RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2010-04759 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His enlisted performance report (EPR) closing 19 Dec 07 be declared void and removed from his records. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: The contested EPR was unjust for the following reasons: 1. Events that occurred in the previous reporting period were unjustly considered in the contested EPR. 2. The events at the beginning of the reporting period were both brief and disproportionately blamed on him. 3. His decertification from supervisory responsibilities was grossly inappropriate and a misleading solution to his attempts to seek help. 4. The short duration of his reassignment to the rater, coupled with his rater’s nearly complete absence, artificially justified the referral report. 5. He sought to improve despite his supervisor’s absence; his supervisor seemed to believe his efforts were insufficient, but was never around to provide the proper mentoring to ensure his success. 6. The supporting documentation from his personal information file (PIF) was weak at best and placed in his record under less than fair circumstances. 7. The referral comments paint the picture of an NCO that failed to meet standards, yet the ratings on the front of the form indicate otherwise. In support of his request, the applicant provides an expanded statement and 21 other attachments which include copies of the contested referral EPR, a letter of reprimand (LOR), two letters of counseling, various memoranda for record (MFR), documentation related to the feedback he was provided during the period in question, excerpts of his training records, and two witness statements. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. ________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: Information extracted from the Military Personnel Data System (MilPDS) indicates the applicant is currently serving on active duty in the grade of technical sergeant (E-6). The applicant’s EPR profile since 2001 follows: PERIOD ENDING OVERALL EVALUATION 9 Mar 01 5 9 Mar 02 4 9 Mar 03 5 31 Jul 03 5 19 Dec 03 5 19 Dec 04 4 19 Dec 05 5 19 Dec 06 4 * 19 Dec 07 3 19 Dec 08 4 4 Sep 09 5 * - Contested Report On 20 Dec 07, the contested report was referred to the applicant for comments related to his decertification in supervisory core tasks and poor interpersonal skills. The applicant acknowledged receipt the same day and submitted a three page rebuttal, with attachments on 8 Jan 08. The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the letter prepared by the appropriate office of the Air Force, which is attached at Exhibit C. ________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSIDEP recommends denial, indicating there is no evidence the contested report is unjust or inaccurate. The applicant cites several reasons he believes the contested EPR is unjust. He contends that events in the previous reporting period were unjustly considered; he received an LOR on 26 Oct 06, two months before the start of the contested reporting period, but the referral EPR contained no remarks about the LOR. While he also indicates he was decertified from supervisory responsibilities prior to the beginning of the reporting period, this fact was not mentioned in his previous EPR and the steps required to recertify the applicant on these tasks were appropriate and worthy of mention during the reporting period in question. AFI 36-2406, Officer and Enlisted Evaluations, indicates that comments regarding events which occurred in a previous reporting period should not be included, unless the events add significantly to the evaluation report, were not known to and considered by the previous evaluators, and were not previously reflected in an evaluation report. Additionally, the applicant received three LOCs for failure to accomplish his duties, missing a mandatory appointment, and missing a mandatory formation during the reporting period in question. While he provides character references from people he worked with, none of these individuals are in the direct rating chain; and the most effective evidence that a report is wrong or unjust consists of statements from the evaluators who signed the report or from others in the rating chain when the report was rendered. As for the applicant’s assertion the supporting documents from his PIF were weak and placed in his record under less than fair circumstances, the initial and mid-term feedback that took place during the contested period clearly showed the applicant was not performing to standards. The initial feedback was marked down the middle and the mid-term feedback was marked with both “Meet” and “Does Not Meet” standards indicated in specific areas with comments. An evaluation report is accurate as written when it becomes a matter of 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/explanation; however, the applicant has failed to provide any information/support from the rating chain. In the absence of such information, official substantiation of error or injustice from the Inspector General (IG) or Military Equal Opportunity is appropriate, but also not provided in this case. An evaluation report is considered to represent the rating chain’s best judgment at the time it is rendered. Once a report is accepted for file, only strong evidence to the contrary warrants correction or removal from a member’s record. The burden of proof is on the applicant and he has not substantiated the contested report was not rendered in good faith by all evaluators based on knowledge available at the time. A complete copy of the 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 25 Mar 11 for review and comment within 30 days. As of this date, no response has been received by this office (Exhibit D). ________________________________________________________________ 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 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. Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no basis to recommend granting the relief sought in this application. 4. The applicant's case is adequately documented and it has not been shown that a personal appearance with or without counsel will materially add to our understanding of the issues involved. Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorably considered. ________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of material error or injustice; the application was denied without a personal appearance; and 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-2010-04759 in Executive Session on 27 Sep 11, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2010-04759 was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 15 Dec 10, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPSIDE, dated 24 Feb 11. Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 25 Mar 11.