RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-02655 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her AF Form 910, Enlisted Performance Report (AB thru TSgt) (EPR), for the period of 9 April 2009 thru 8 April 2010 be declared void and removed from her records. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 1. Due to a 118-day temporary duty (TDY) assignment and the fact that she was not supervised by any of the four supervisors for at least 120-days as required by the AFI, the report was not valid and should be removed. 2. She had four different supervisors during the rating period. The person who signed section IV of her EPR was not her supervisor during the rating period. 3. The AFI states “commanders may deviate from the normal (supervisory) rating chain only when necessary to meet grade requirements or to accommodate unique organizational structures and situations where personnel are temporarily loaned or matrixed to other activities outside of the ratee’s Permanently Assigned Station (PAS). It is prohibited to make rating chain deviations (such as skipping an evaluator) solely for the reasons of convenience. Example: Do not skip a rater’s rater who is temporarily unavailable (on leave, TDY, etc.).” Moreover, she has provided several AF Forms 988, Leave Request Authorizations to corroborate statements provided by her raters. Based on conflicting information she has suffered an injustice and requests the Board please remove the erroneous EPR. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. ________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant is currently serving in the Regular Air Force in the grade of Technical Sergeant, E-6, having assumed that grade effective and with date of rank (DOR) of 1 January 2010. The applicant’s EPR profile is listed below: PERIOD ENDING OVERALL EVALUATION 30 Sep 2011 5B 03 Dec 2010 5B * 08 Apr 2010 4B 08 Apr 2009 5B 08 Apr 2008 5B *Contested Report ________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSID recommends denial. DPSID states the applicant has not provided evidence to show that the report is unjust or inaccurate at the time it was originally written. a. The applicant filed two appeals through the Evaluations Report Appeals Board (ERAB) under the provisions of AFI 36-2401, Correcting Officer and Enlisted Evaluation Reports, 10, Mar 06. The ERAB reviewed both applications and was not convinced the contested report was inaccurate or unjust. b. It is clear that the applicant had different individuals who served in supervisory capacities over her during the rating period, but only two of these individuals stand out as individuals with actual rating official responsibilities during this rating period. They were able to determine from reviewing the Military Personnel Data System (MilPDS), Automated Records Management System (ARMS), and Personnel Records Display Application (PRDA) that MSgt 1, one of the two individuals, did in fact digitally sign the applicant’s EPR as the rater. MSgt 1 was recorded as having 252 days of supervision on the report, which matches the data contained in MilPDS. This would infer that there was another individual who had rating responsibilities during the first 113 days of the rating period. After a careful review of the evidence provided in the case, they concluded that this person was most likely MSgt 2., who confirmed in a provided email that MSgt(s) 1 and 2 were the only two individuals during the contested rating period that had direct supervision over the applicant. They contend that any other individual named in this case merely acted in a supervisory capacity during the rating period, and did not have any actual rating responsibilities, contrary to the applicant’s misguided belief that they in fact did. AFI 36-2401, paragraph A1.5.17, states that the Air Force does not require a designated rater to be your immediate supervisor. Inaccurate designations and failures to change raters may occur, when personnel are reassigned, work centers reorganized, functional units realigned, etc. Nevertheless, the applicant has not provided concrete evidence that the rater of record did not accumulate at least 120 days of total supervision and as such we dismiss this allegation and find it to be without any merit. c. The applicant also provided, in her case, a number of leave request forms which were signed by different approving officials. The applicant mistakenly believes that these forms serve as evidence that these additional individuals were her rating officials, but nothing could be further from the truth. It is common practice within the Air Force that leave approving authorities are delegated from direct rating officials. In the cases presented, it appears to be exactly what transpired and nothing more. Therefore, the evidence the applicant provides in this case is irrelevant and certainly not germane to her overall appeal. d. Air Force policy is that an evaluation report is accurate as written when it becomes a matter of record. They 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. She has not substantiated the contested report was not rendered in good faith by all evaluators based on the knowledge available at the time. To effectively challenge an evaluation it is necessary to hear from all members of the rating chain, not only for support, but also for clarification/explanation. The applicant conspicuously has failed to provide any information or support from the additional rater or commander on the contested evaluation. Without the benefit of these additional statements they can only conclude that the report was accurate at the time that it was written. Finally, it is determined that the report was accomplished in direct accordance with applicable regulations. The complete AFPC/DPSID 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 September 2012 for review and comment within 30 days (Exhibit D). To 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 error or injustice. We took notice of the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of the case; however, we do not find her assertions sufficient to override the rationale provided by the Air Force office of primary responsibility. Therefore, 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 that the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no compelling 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 issue(s) involved. Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorably considered. ________________________________________________________________ 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 this application in Executive Session on 12 February 2013, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: , Panel Chair , Member , Member The following documentary evidence was considered in AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2012-02655: Exhibit A. DD Form 149 dated 31 May 2012, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Applicant’s Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPSID, dated 14 July 2012. Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 25 September 2012. Dear: Reference your application submitted under the provisions of AFI 36-2603 (Section 1552, 10 USC), AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2012-02655. After careful consideration of your application and military records, the Board determined that the evidence you presented did not demonstrate the existence of material error or injustice. Accordingly, the Board denied your application. You have the right to submit newly discovered relevant evidence for consideration by the Board. In the absence of such additional evidence, a further review of your application is not possible. Attachment: Record of Board Proceedings 5