RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-04840 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NOT INDICATED APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His AF Forms 910, Enlisted Performance Report (AB thru TSgt), for the periods ending 5 January 2011 and 5 January 2012 be removed from his records. APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: He received an initial feedback on 24 September 2010 and a mid- term feedback on 15 November 2010, 44 days after the initial feedback. The EPR was then finalized on 5 January 2011, only eight weeks after the mid-term feedback. His supervisor did not have 365 days of supervision. A personal opinion rather than an accurate rating was made. Despite the final mark on his EPR, he was selected to continue performing duties as the Noncommissioned Officer in Charge (NCOIC) of Training despite the fact there were others who could have replaced him. The 2012 EPR was the result of the 2011 EPR and not because of his unwillingness to perform. He was told leadership did not want to give him a “5” rating. While this is hearsay, he provides copies of his previous and new EPRs to show the inconsistency. He requests the Board contact identified individuals about his work ethic and conduct. A person deserving of such low ratings should not have been allowed to continue serving in a highly visible position in which they train, supervise, mentor and influence many airmen. In support of his request, the applicant provides a personal statement and copies of his EPRs for the period from 20 October 2006 through 5 January 2014. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant is currently serving in the Air Force Reserve in the grade of Technical Sergeant (TSgt, E-6). On 25 September 2001, the applicant entered the Regular Air Force and was honorably released from active duty on 4 March 2012 with a narrative reason for separation of “Completion of Required Active Service.” According to the applicant’s AF Form 910 for the period ending 5 January 2011, the applicant received a referral EPR with an overall rating of “2.” The specific reason for the referral EPR was the applicant violated a no contact order in violation of Article 92, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) and was issued a Letter of Reprimand (LOR). AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSID recommends denial. The applicant has provided insufficient documentation to prove his assertions that the contested evaluations were rendered unfairly or unjustly. 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 provided insufficient information from the rating officials on the contested reports. It appears the reports were accomplished In Accordance With (IAW) applicable Air Force policies and procedures. Once a report is accepted for file, only strong evidence to the contrary should warrant correction or removal from an individual’s record and the burden of proof should be on the applicant. The applicant asserts his rater rated him as “Needs Improvement” on his 2011 EPR and “Average” on his 2012 EPR due to a personal opinion rather than his work performance. AFI 36-2406, Officer and Enlisted Evaluation Systems states “The rater assesses and documents the ratee’s performance, what the ratee did, how well he or she did it and the ratee’s potential based on that performance. The rater differentiates through an evaluation of performance.” AFI 36-2406 also states “The additional rater completes Section VI of the EPR by concurring or non-concurring with the rater and making comments.” The applicant has provided insufficient supporting documentation to prove the EPRs were not rendered fairly based on his performance factors within the reporting period. Without evidence to support the applicant’s claim, DPSID contends the EPRs are accurate as written and IAW the established intent of the current Officer and Enlisted Evaluation System in-place. The applicant did not file an appeal through the Evaluation Report Appeals Board (ERAB) under the provisions of AFI 36-2401, Correcting Officer and Enlisted Evaluation Reports, due to his separation from active duty. A complete copy of the 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 5 October 2015 for review and comment within 30 days (Exhibit D). 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 or injustice. We do not find his assertions, in and by themselves, sufficiently persuasive in this matter. Additionally, we are not persuaded by the evidence provided that the contested reports are not a true and accurate assessment of his performance and demonstrated potential during the specified time period. We note the applicant requests the Board contact others regarding his work ethic and conduct. However, this Board is not an investigative body and the burden of proof of an error or injustice rests with the applicant. Therefore, 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 issues involved. Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorably considered. 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-2014-04840 in Executive Session on 29 October 2015 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: , Panel Chair , Member , Member The following documentary evidence was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 6 November 2014, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Memorandum, AFPC/DPSID, dated 23 September 2015. Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 5 October 2015.