RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-01918 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 1. His Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) rendered for the period 12 February 2009 through 11 February 2010 be removed from his record. 2. The Air Force Good Conduct Medal (AFGCM) for the period 3 December 2006 to 2 December 2009 be reinstated. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: The contested report reflects a full mark down in section III – item 2 (Standards, Conduct, Character & Military Bearing) to “Does Not Meet”. This was based upon the last statement in that section “Supervisory roles removed/received Letter of Reprimand/placed on UIF/Control Roster for alleged misconduct.” This statement reveals that there was no proof but accusation - whereby he was found to not be at fault. This incident also caused the denial of the AFGCM for the period 3 December 2006 to 2 December 2009. In support of his request, the applicant provides the contested report and letter from the 690th NSS/CC dated 15 December 2009. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. ________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 27 December 2000. The applicant did not file an appeal through the Evaluation Reports Appeal Board (ERAB) under the provisions of AFI 36-2401, Correcting Officer and Enlisted Evaluation Reports. EPR profile since 2004 reflects the following: PERIOD ENDING EVALUATION OF POTENTIAL 15 Jul 04 5 25 Aug 05 5 11 Feb 06 5 11 Feb 07 5 11 Feb 08 5 11 Feb 09 5 * 11 Feb 10 3 * Contested report. On 1 September 2010, the applicant was honorably discharged under the provisions of AFI 36-3208 (Completion of Required Active Service). He served 9 years, 8 months and 5 days on active duty. ________________________________________________________________ _ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSID recommends denial to remove the contested report from the applicant’s records. DPSID states the applicant provided no evidence whatsoever within his case to show that the referral comment on the EPR was inaccurate or unjust; therefore, DPSID contends that the inclusion of the referral comment on the EPR was appropriate and within the evaluator’s authority to document given the incident. Moreover, a final review of the contested evaluation was accomplished by the additional rater and a subsequent agreement by the reviewer/commander served as a final “check and balance” in order to ensure that the report was given a fair consideration in accordance with the established intent of the current Officer and Enlisted Evaluation System in place. The applicant has provided absolutely no supporting documentation to prove his claim of not being at fault for the alleged accusation. The applicant provided a one sentence comment claiming he was not at fault for an incident that occurred. Based on the presumed legitimacy of the LOR/UIF/Control Roster action and absolutely no proof or supporting documentation that it has ever been removed, DPSID find that the mention of it in the contested evaluation to be fair and appropriate and in accordance with all applicable Air Force instructional guidance and procedures; as such, there is no basis in which they can support removal of the contested report. Air Force policy is that an evaluation report is accurate as written when it becomes a matter of record. It is considered to represent the rating chain’s best judgment at the time it is rendered. Statements from all the evaluators during the contested period are conspicuously absent. In order to effectively and successfully challenge the validity of an evaluation report, it is necessary to hear from all the members of the rating chain. Without benefit of these statements, and based on the evidence provided they can only conclude that the report is accurate as written. The report was accomplished in direct accordance with all applicable Air Force policies and procedures. The DPSID complete evaluation is at Exhibit C. AFPC/DPSID recommends denial of the AFGCM. The AFGCM was authorized by the Secretary of the Air Force on 1 June 1963. The medal is awarded to enlisted personnel during a three-year period of active military service or for a one-year period of service during a time of war. Airmen awarded this medal must have had character and efficiency ratings of excellent or higher throughout the qualifying period. In accordance with Executive Order 8809, amended by Executive Order 9323, the AFGCM may also be awarded to service members who complete more than one year but less than three years of Total Active Federal Military Service if the AFGCM has not been previously awarded. The applicant has not shown the existence of an error or injustice. The applicant has not provided evidence to support his assertion that he was found not in fault in relation to the incident in question. However, even if the Board were to grant the request in relation to the EPR, the LOR would remain; the referral for the EPR was generated by the LOR, in part, and not the other way around. The decision to deny award of the AFGCM resides with the commander, and without significant, convincing evidence to the contrary the denial should stand. They have not been provided any justification to overrule the commander in the exercise of his prerogative under Air Force Instruction 36-2803; the commander found the applicant had not performed in an exemplary manner; removal of the EPR, or even the LOR, does not negate his decision. The DPSID complete evaluation is at Exhibit D. ________________________________________________________________ _ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: On 15 October 2013, a copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant for review and response within 30 days (Exhibit E). 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. Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of an error or injustice. While the applicant contends that the contested report rendered for the period 12 February 2009 through 11 February 2010 invalidates itself by the mention of an alleged incident to which he received an LOR/UIF and placed on a control roster, we do not find the documentation presented sufficient to conclude the contested report is an inaccurate assessment of his performance or that it was inappropriately rendered. Regarding the AFGCM, the commander found the applicant did not perform in an exemplary manner during his enlisted status for award of the AFGCM. The applicant's complete submission was thoroughly reviewed and his contentions were duly noted. However, we do not find the applicant’s assertions and the documentation presented in support of his appeal sufficiently persuasive to override the rationale provided by the Air Force offices of primary responsibility (OPRs). Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no basis to recommend granting the relief sought in this application. ________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of an 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-2013-01918 in Executive Session on 7 January 2014, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2013-01918 was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 17 April 2013, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Applicant’s Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPSID, dated 23 August 2013. Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/DPSID, dated 16 September 2013. Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 15 October 2013. 5 6