RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-01365 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her AF Form 911, Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) (MSgt thru CMSgt), rendered for the period 2 Apr 13 through 9 Apr 14 be amended to reflect a senior rater endorsement. APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: She was eligible for and met all the requirements for a senior rater endorsement; therefore, her EPR should have been signed by the senior rater versus his deputy. In support of her request, the applicant provides a copy of her AF Form 911. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachment, is at Exhibit A. STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant is currently serving on active duty in the grade of master sergeant. AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSID recommends denial indicating the applicant has not provided compelling evidence to show that the contested report was unjust or inaccurate as written. The applicant did file an appeal through the Evaluation Reports Appeals Board (ERAB) under the provisions of AFI 36-2406, Officer and Enlisted Evaluation Systems, dated 3 Jan 13; however, the case was returned for lack of supporting evidence and no further action was taken by the applicant. The applicant contends that the 9 Feb 14 EPR should be corrected to reflect “Senior Rater” in section VII (Reviewer’s Comments) and Section VIII (Final Evaluator’s Position) should be changed from “Senior Rater’s Deputy” to “Senior Rater.” IAW AFI 36-2406, paragraph 3.1.11.3, “if the member is Time-In-Grade (TIG) eligible for a senior rater endorsement, a senior rater endorsement is not automatic or mandatory. TIG eligibility, Senior Noncommissioned Officer Academy and Community College of the Air Force are only the minimum established requirements for endorsement consideration, and does not entitle, or guarantee an automatic endorsement. The initial decision to forward the evaluation to the senior rater is up to the evaluator who is eligible to close- out the evaluation and each level thereafter, without necessarily going to the senior rater.” Although the applicant may feel she has been done an injustice, the final evaluator, in this case, the Senior Rater’s Deputy, felt it appropriate to close-out the EPR at their level which was completely within their discretion to do so. Furthermore, the applicant has provided no evidence within her case to show that the contested EPR was inaccurate or unjust. The applicant has failed to provide a re-accomplished EPR, along with signed memorandums of support/justification from the original evaluators at the time. AFI 36-2406, states the board will not consider nor approve requests to change evaluator’s ratings or comments if the evaluator does not support the change. Air Force policy is that an evaluation report is accurate as written when it becomes a matter of record. Additionally, it is considered to represent the rating chain’s best judgment at the time it is rendered. 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 has failed to provide any information or clarification from all the rating officials on the contested report. Once a report is accepted for file, only strong evidence to the contrary warrants correction or removal from an individual’s record The applicant has not substantiated that the contested report was not rendered accurately and in good faith by all evaluators based on knowledge available at the time. A complete copy of the AFPC/DPSID evaluation is at Exhibit B. APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 18 Apr 15, for review and comment within 30 days (Exhibit C). 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. 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 the Air Force office of primary responsibility and adopt its rationale as the basis for our conclusion the applicant has not been the victim of an error of injustice. Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no basis to recommend granting the requested relief. THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of material 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-2014-01365 in Executive Session on 9 Jun 15, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: Panel Chair Member Member The following documentary evidence was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 24 Mar 14, w/atch. Exhibit B. Letter, AFPC/DPSID, dated 18 Apr 15. Exhibit C. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 5 May 15.