RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2011-03198 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her AF Form 911, Enlisted Performance Report (MSgt thru CMSgt) (EPR) for the period of 21 July 2009 thru 10 May 2010 be removed from her records. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 1. The EPR contained administrative errors in: A. Required number of days of supervision. Administratively Corrected. B. Dates of provided feedback. 2. Her commander, who was also the Additional Rater, was biased against her. 3. She was held to a higher standard than her peers and the final report was held until after the departure of the group command leadership present during the reporting period. 4. The EPR did not meet the AFI required suspense of being sent no later than 60 days after close-out to AFPC/DPPBE. 5. The incoming Group Commander had no knowledge of the personality conflict between her and the commander. In support of her request, the applicant provides a personal statement, a copy of her HQ AFPC Evaluation Reports Appeal Board (ERAB) decision, copies of EPRs, supporting memorandums and related documents. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. ________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant is an enlisted member of the Regular Air Force currently serving in the grade of Senior Master Sergeant (E-8). The applicant’s EPR profile as a Senior Noncommissioned Officer is listed below: PERIOD ENDING OVERALL EVALUATION 10 May 2011 5B *10 May 2010 4B 20 Jul 2009 5B 20 Jul 2008 5B 20 Jul 2007 5B *Contested Report The applicant filed an appeal with the ERAB to remove the performance report. The ERAB considered the request, however, they were not convinced the report was unjust or wrong, and denied the requested relief. The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application extracted from the applicant’s military personnel records are contained in the letter prepared by the appropriate Air Force office of primary responsibility (Exhibit B). Accordingly there is no need to recite these facts in this Record of Proceedings. ________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSID recommends denial. DPSID states there is no evidence the report is unjust or inaccurate as rendered. The applicant contends the root cause of her receiving a marked down overall “4” EPR was due to a personality conflict with her additional rater who was also her commander. The applicant claims to have been in a horrible work environment, the worst in her Air Force career. The applicant does acknowledge she received a Letter of Admonishment from her commander for failure to obey and disrespect to a senior officer (failure to salute) for an incident during the rating period. If the applicant believed she was a victim of unfair treatment by her additional rater, and any unfair treatment may have negatively influenced the report, then it is our contention that she should have initiated an Inspector General (IG) or Military Equal Opportunity and Treatment (EOT) complaint. The applicant has failed to provide any evidence that she pursued any of these actions or provide any findings in her favor. In the absence of any evidence of unfair treatment or injustice, we find the ratings were given fairly and in accordance with all Air Force policies and procedures. Air Force policy is that 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 members of the rating chain, not only for support, but also for clarification/explanation. The applicant has failed to provide any information/support from the rating chain of record on the contested EPR. In the absence of information from evaluators, official substantiation of error or injustice from the IG or EOT is appropriate, but not provided in this case. It appears the report was accomplished in direct accordance with applicable regulations. An evaluation report is considered to represent the rating chain’s best judgment at the time it is rendered. We contend that once a report is accepted for file, only strong evidence to the contrary warrants correction or removal from an individual’s record. The burden of proof is on the applicant. The applicant has not substantiated the contested report was not rendered in good faith by all evaluators based on knowledge available at the time. Our research has revealed that the total number of days supervised, as claimed on the report is incorrect (the report stated 293 total days). The correct number of days supervised, after deducting for the applicant’s deployed time was actually 156 total days. The applicant deployed during this rating period and provided a travel voucher to show this fact. The total number of days as indicated on the travel voucher that are appropriate to deduct from the rating period are 137 days. As a result of this finding, AFPC/DPSIDEP has, in accordance with AFI 36-2406, Officer and Enlisted Evaluation Systems, administratively corrected the total number of days on the contested report to reflect 156 total days supervised and has submitted the corrected report to ARMS for inclusion in the applicant’s permanent evaluation record. The complete AFPC/DPSID evaluation is at Exhibit B. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant highlights the fact that the attached MSM with push note and current EPR illustrate sustained superior performance on her part and further demonstrates her work ethic since the incident. The applicant’s complete response w/attachments is at 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. Sufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of error and injustice. After a thorough review of the facts and circumstances of this case, we believe the applicant has been the victim of an injustice. We note the comments of the Air Force office of primary responsibility, indicating the applicant has failed to sustain her burden of proof; however, we believe she has raised sufficient doubt regarding the equity and accuracy of the contested EPR. In this respect, we note the overall rating of the contested report represents a significant regression when compared to her performance history both prior and subsequent to the period under review; and there was no evidence of any adverse action or misconduct on the part of the applicant. Therefore, in order to preclude the possibility of an injustice to the applicant, we believe it is appropriate to resolve any doubt in her favor. Accordingly, we recommend her records be corrected as indicated below. ________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating to APPLICANT be corrected to show that the Enlisted Performance Report (MSgt thru CMSgt), AF Form 911, rendered for the period 21 July 2009 through 10 May 2010 be declared void and removed from her records. ________________________________________________________________ The following members of the Board considered this application BC-2011-03198 in Executive Session on 5 April 2012, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: The following documentary evidence was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149 dated 12 August 2011, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Letter, AFPC/DPSID, dated 3 November 2011. Exhibit C. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 18 November 2011. Exhibit D. Letter, Applicant, dated 12 December 2011, w/atchs.