RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-04459 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His AF IMT 911, Senior Enlisted Performance Report (MSgt thru CMSgt), Section III, Evaluation of Performance, Block 3, Leadership, with a close-out date of 10 October 2005, be changed from “Highly Effective Leader” to “Exceptionally Effective Leader.” ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: He believes the record is in error because his rater sent it forward as a firewall “5.” The rater stated it was not her intent to markdown the leadership category. Her leadership did not agree with her assessment and wanted it downgraded. Rather than sending the EPR forward without the markdown and allowing the additional rater to non-concur, she mistakenly sent it up with the markdown. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. ________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant is a former member of the Air Force who retired on 1 March 2008 in the grade of master sergeant. ________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSID recommends denial. Due to the inexcusable delay of attempting to correct the report in a timely manner, and without statements from the entire rating chain, the report is assumed accurate and correct as written. In this case, it can only be assumed that at the time of the original crafting of the report, the rater ultimately agreed with the decision to mark him down as she signed the report. It is not uncommon for a rater or endorser to soften their opinions in retrospect as time passes. The applicant has provided insufficient documentation to prove his assertions that the contested evaluation was rendered unfairly or unjustly. Air Force policy is an evaluation report is considered to represent the rating chain’s best judgment at the time it is rendered. In accordance with AFI 36-2401, Correcting Officer and Enlisted Evaluation Reports, paragraph 1.3 states the Board will not consider nor approve requests to change an evaluator’s ratings or comments if the evaluator does not support the change. When an evaluator supports changing ratings, all subsequent evaluators must also agree to the changes. In order to challenge the validity of an evaluation report, it is necessary to hear from all the members of the rating chain. The complete 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 8 September 2014, for review and comment within 30 days (Exhibit D). As of this date, this office has received no response. ________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT: 1. The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by existing law or regulations. 2. The application was not timely filed; however, it is in the interest of justice to excuse the failure to timely file. 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 agree with the opinion and recommendation of AFPC/DPSID and adopt its rationale as the basis for our conclusion that absent statements that all evaluators support the requested change, we find no basis to disturb the existing record. Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no compelling basis to recommend granting the relief sought in this application. ________________________________________________________________ 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-2013-04459 in Executive Session on 16 October 2014 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: The following documentary evidence was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 9 Sep 13, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Applicant’s Master Personnel Record Excerpts. Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPSID, dated 8 Aug 14. Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 8 Sep 14.