RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-01902 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) with a closeout date of 17 Apr 10 be voided and removed from his records. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 1. His contested EPR was not written by his direct supervisor. In addition, the Chief who authored the report did not have enough days of supervision. He provides documentation that clearly substantiates these facts, along with providing a subsequent report that shows a malicious intent by the Chief; who also violated the governing instructions. 2. He appealed to the Evaluation Reports and Appeals Board (ERAB) on 9 Nov 12; however, his request was denied. His original appeal package not only contested an unfair and wrong doings by someone who erroneously wrote the contested report, but it also outlined insufficient days of supervision. The ERAB stated, “an applicant requesting relief must provide strong evidence to overcome the report’s presumed validity.” He provides clear, concise, and strong evidence proving multiple violations of the governing instructions. In support of his request, the applicant provides a copy of the Timeline of Events and a copy of his ERAB appeals memorandum. His complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. ________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant is currently serving on active duty in the Regular Air Force in the grade of technical sergeant. CLOSE OUT DATE OVERALL PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT 17 Apr 09 5 * 17 Apr 10 4 29 Dec 10 5 29 Dec 11 5 29 Dec 12 5 9 Sep 13 5 *Contested Report The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the letters prepared by the appropriate offices of the Air Force, which is at Exhibit C. ________________________________________________________________ _ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 1. AFPC/DPSID recommends denial. The applicant believes that after subtracting the days he was on temporary duty (TDY) and loaned to another duty section that the rater would not have obtained the minimum required supervision of 120 days. However, after subtracting the 41 days of TDY, the evaluator who signed the report did have more than the 120 days of required supervision. The deduction does not include periods of loan to another section or organization when authorities do not change the rater or publish TDY orders. 2. The applicant contends that an initial feedback was not accomplished within the recommended timeframe of 60 days nor was the midterm feedback session accomplished midway between the dates of supervision and the projected close out date; however, both sessions were conducted and the applicant was informed of his deficiencies. According to the applicant’s own admission, the Chief was not assigned as his supervisor until after his departure for Non-Commissioned Officers Academy (NCOA) and his supervision was backdated to the Chief’s date arrived station on 10 Aug 09. Assuming the applicant returned to work the day after his graduation on 22 Oct 09, the Chief’s feedback session was conducted 61 days later. A report is not erroneous or unfair because the applicant believes it contributed to a lack of counseling or feedback. 3. They do not believe the applicant has provided sufficient substantiating documentation or evidence to prove his assertions that the contested evaluation was rendered unfairly or unjustly. He has merely offered his view of events as he believes them to be true. Furthermore, negative factors do not need to be present or even exist in order to receive a “4” or an “Above Average” rating, as this clearly signifies performing “Above” the established Air Force standard. 4. The applicant provided supporting memorandums from individuals outside of his rating chain; however, while those individuals are entitled to their opinion of the applicant’s duty performance and the events occurring around the time of when the EPR was rendered, we do not believe they were in a better position to evaluate his duty performance than those who were specifically assigned that responsibility. The applicant does not provide information from the rating officials on the contested report. The complete DPSID evaluation is at Exhibit C. ________________________________________________________________ _ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: In a 5-page brief, the applicant makes the following rebuttal: a. He implores the Board to thoroughly review all facts presented in his case. He has provided an immeasurable amount of evidence of multiple wrong and unjust occurrences. He also reiterates the fact that he provides clear and concise proof that multiple violations of the governing instructions occurred. b. AFPC/DPSID’s advisory opinion states “The applicant believes that after subtraction of his TDY to the NCO Academy and the time he was loaned out to another section, the rater on the contested evaluation did not obtain the minimum required supervision of 120 days.” In his original application, there is substantial evidence that shows the Chief did not have enough days of supervision to close out a report on him. The Chief and the Director had a malevolent demeanor towards his career. He provides a timeline that proves the Chief start date began on 31 Aug 09. The Chief sent an email to him on 21 Sep 09 stating he was assigned as his supervisor effective 10 Aug 09. c. DPSID’s advisory opinion fails to admit that the Chief violated the governing instructions by not performing his initial feedback within the required first 60 days of supervision. AFI 36-2406, Officer and Enlisted Evaluation Systems, note 1, states “The rater must conduct the initial feedback session within the first 60 days he or she initially begins supervision. This will be the ratee’s only initial feedback until they have a change or reporting official.” Instead, the advisory opinion attempts to justify and validate that at least some sort of feedback occurred. It is his obligation to highlight significant negative and questionable trends that transpired during the time period in question. The instruction notes to “deduct all periods of 30 days or more consecutive calendar days during which the rate or the rater was TDY, on leave, in patient status, in classroom training (such as attending PME at home station),” leaving only 103 days of supervision which clearly does not meet the required days later. d. DPSID attempts to justify receiving a “4” or an “Above Average” rating as still performing “Above” the established Air Force standard. However, to his dismay, this is inexcusable because he has provided plenty of evidence that highlights significant and multiple negative trends by the Chief. e. He provides a letter from the Chief of Civilian Requirements Division who was his additional rater of the subsequent evaluation in which the Chief continued to perform malicious acts to hinder his career and who also blatantly changed a rating by another civilian without her knowledge. Further, he contests the statement provided in the DPSID advisory opinion that states “In order 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,” because the individuals who signed the contested EPR are directly involved in a derogatory manner. f. Additionally, DPSID states there is “lack of corroborating and compelling evidence” and “to grant relief would be contrary to established Air Force instructions in that the evaluation is presumed accurate at the time it is accomplished and placed in the official military personnel record. This would equally be an injustice to the entire Air Force Evaluation System and circumvent the evaluators which were specifically given the responsibility to evaluate the applicant during this period.” He references the Air Force Pamphlet and Instructions that both afford the military member the right to contest, pursue and provide a burden of proof that the member was a victim of error or injustice. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit E. ________________________________________________________________ _ 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. After reviewing all of the evidence provided, we are not persuaded that the contested report is or that its contents violate governing directives. We have noted the applicant’s contentions concerning the contested report and his allegations of malicious intent by his rater in order to hinder his career. However, while the applicant may believe this is the case, there is nothing in the evidence provided which would lead us to believe that the EPR in question was prepared with any motivation on the part of the evaluators other than to report their assessment of the applicant’s performance. . 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 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 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 AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2013-01902 in Executive Session on 16 Jan 14, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: , Chair , Member , Member The following documentary evidence was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 16 Apr 13, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPSID, dated 16 Sep 13. Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 15 Oct 13. Exhibit E. Letter, Applicant, dated 14 Nov 13, w/atchs. 4 5 6