RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2011-02715 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His Air Force Form 911, Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) (MSgt thru CMSgt) rendered for the period 30 September 2009 through 29 September 2010, be amended in Section VII (Reviewer’s Comments), line 3, to reflect his enlisted stratification of “#3 of 105 master sergeants.” _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: On or about 16 Mar 11, Lieutenant Colonel V informed him there was a clerical error on his 2010 EPR that required correction. Lieutenant Colonel V stated “Major General M had stratified him #3 of 105 MSgts within the National Reconnaissance Organization (NRO) for 2010” and he needed to work with the personnel section in the NRO to get the EPR corrected. After several months of working with the personnel section, he was informed the Evaluation Report Appeals Board (ERAB) was not convinced the contested report was inaccurate or unjust and disapproved his request. He disagrees with the decision of the ERAB and AFI 36-2401, Correcting Officer and Enlisted Evaluation Reports to deny his request. AFI 36-2401, paragraph A1.5., indicates “a report is not erroneous or unfair because of a missing stratification statement due to the fact the stratification is not required on enlisted reports.” While, he fully supports the rationale for not allowing corrections to EPRs for certain reasons. However, over the last few years senior enlisted promotions have become more competitive and the level of stratification has become a contributing factor in consideration for promotion and for career progression. Every year, chief master sergeants (CMSgts) from all levels (unit, squadron, group and wing) convene boards to review and make recommendations to their respective commanders to rate their top senior noncommissioned officers (SNCOs) amongst their peers. The process is very tedious and time consuming. However, senior enlisted and officers know the importance of stratification for their “top enlisted performers” and therefore, take the time to acknowledge their accomplishments and future leadership potential. He is the victim of an error and it would be unjust not to make the requested change to his EPR. The stratification was omitted through no fault of his own, but from an oversight during the EPR review process, as stated by Major General M. At no time did he, his supervisor, or anyone in his chain of command know the stratification had been omitted from his EPR. Unfortunately, it was not discovered until after the EPR was signed, placed in his official military record, and reviewed during the 2011E8 promotion board. Had the error been discovered prior to signing of the EPR, he would not have signed the report until the correction was made. The error not only had promotion implications for the 2011E8 promotion cycle but will impact every promotion cycle for the rest of his military career. In support of his request, the applicant provides a personal statement, copies of the contested and corrected EPRs, memorandums and other documentation in support of his application. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. _________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant is currently serving on active duty in the grade of master sergeant (MSgt). 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: HQ AFPC/DPSID recommends denial. The applicant provided a substitute report, signed by all of the original rating chain, as well as a justification memorandum from his reviewer Major General M. In addition, the applicant provided a letter from Lieutenant Colonel V, who while not in his rating chain, states he was involved in the administrative process of helping to provide stratification recommendations to Major General M. After a careful review of the supporting documents, it appears the discovery occurred only after the applicant was notified of his non-selection for promotion to the rank of SMSgt by the 2011E8 promotion board. General M’s evaluation appeal statement states “shortly after the SMSgt promotion release on 10 Mar 11, my command chief conducted a records review and counseling session with the applicant and it was noted that information (stratification) was not documented on his EPR.” The applicant states in his memorandum that he was informed by Lieutenant Colonel V that there was a clerical error on his 2010 EPR that needed to be corrected. Lieutenant Colonel V, according to the applicant stated “Major General M had stratified you as the #3 of 105 MSgts in the NRO for 2010.” The question that immediately comes to mind is that in any organization, especially a large organization such as the Air Force Space Command Element, how likely is it that no one at multiple levels of responsibility had any visibility or awareness of the stratification procedures and allowed someone who was in the top 3 of 105 MSgts to have a report finalized without including this stratification. Major General M. claims in her statement that this occurred due to an administrative error”, but does not elaborate on how or why the administrative error occurred. AFI 36-2401, paragraph A1.5.1., states the following: “Impact on Promotion Career Opportunity”. A report is not erroneous or unfair because the applicant believes it contributed to a non- selection for promotion or may impact future promotion on career opportunities. The board recognizes that non-selection for promotion is, for many, a traumatic event, and the desire to overturn that non-selection is powerful motivation to appeal. However, the board is careful to keep the promotion and evaluation issues separate, and to focus on the evaluation report only. The simple willingness by evaluators to upgrade, rewrite, or void a report is not a valid basis for doing so. For example, requests to add optional statements (such as PME, job/command “push” recommendation, or stratification) to an evaluation report or promotion recommendation form (PRF) will normally not form the basis for a successful appeal. The applicant must prove the report is erroneous or unjust based on its content.” The applicant nor the Reviewer has provided any evidence that the report was inaccurate of erroneous, based on its content. Additionally, the applicant states “however, over the last several years, senior enlisted promotions have become competitive, and the level of stratification has become a contributing factor in consideration for promotion.” He also states “however, our senior enlisted and officers know the importance stratification for their top enlisted performers.” The applicant, being a SNCO himself would well know this fact, and it seems hard to believe that he would not have been notified of this previously agreed upon stratification on himself, since it had already been established by Lieutenant Colonel V that it was Major General M’s wish that the applicant receive this stratification. In any case, as previously mentioned, pushes for stratification are not mandatory, and their exclusion does not constitute an injustice, nor make the report inaccurate. As such, the willingness of the reviewer to change the EPR after the fact should not provide the basis for successfully appealing to substitute the contested report, as nor error or injustice has occurred in this case. We contend that once a report is accepted for file, only strong evidence of an error or injustice warrants correction or removal from an individual’s record. The burden of proof is on the applicant and in this case we contend the applicant has failed to substantiate an error or injustice has occurred on the contested evaluation and that all reasonable attempts were made prior to the selection board by both the rating chain and applicant. The complete DPSID evaluation is at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: A copy of the Air Force evaluations was forwarded to the applicant on 2 Sep 11 for review and comment within 30 days (Exhibit D). As of this date, no response has been received by this office. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT: 1. The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by existing law or regulations. 2. The application was timely filed. 3. Sufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of an error or injustice. We note the comments of the Air Force office of primary responsibility; however, after a thorough review of the evidence of record and his submission, we believe the applicant has established reasonable doubt as to whether or not the EPR in question is a true and accurate portrayal of his performance and demonstrated potential during the period in question. In view of the letter of clarification/support from the senior rater stating that due to an administrative oversight a stratification statement was omitted on the applicant’s EPR closing 29 September 2010, we recommend that his record be corrected as indicated below. In addition, since the contested report was a matter of record when he was considered for promotion during cycle 11E8, we also recommend that he be provided supplemental consideration for promotion to the grade of senior master sergeant (E-8) for all appropriate cycles beginning with this cycle. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Fore relating to the APPLICANT be corrected to show that: a. The AF Form 911, Enlisted Performance Report (MSgt thru CMSgt) rendered for the period 30 September 2009 through 29 September 2010, be and hereby is declared void and removed from his records. b. The attached AF Form 911, Enlisted Performance Report (MSgt thru CMSgt) rendered for the period 30 September 2009 through 29 September 2010, be inserted in his Senior Noncommissioned Officer Selection Folder in its proper sequence. It is further recommended that he be provided supplemental consideration for promotion to the grade of senior master sergeant (E-8) for all appropriate cycles beginning with cycle 11E8. If AFPC discovers any adverse factors during or subsequent to supplemental consideration that are separate and apart, and unrelated to the issues involved in this application, that would have rendered the applicant ineligible for the promotion, such information will be documented and presented to the board for a final determination on the individual's qualification for the promotion. _________________________________________________________________ The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2011-02715 in Executive Session on 16 Feb 12, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: Panel Chair. Member Member The following documentary evidence was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 11 Jul 11, w/atchs. Exhibit B. HQ AFPC/DPSID, Letter, dated 22 Aug 11. Exhibit C. SAF/MRBR, Letter, dated 2 Sep 11. Panel Chair