RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2015-02221 XXXXXXXXXXXX COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: The referral comments on his AF Form 475, Education/Training Report (TR), rendered for the period 3 June 2013 through 4 June 2014, be removed. APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: The director at the Marine Corps War College made comments on his TR which triggered the referral report. The director noted three instances of conduct he considered examples of failing to adhere to course standards in bearing, conduct and appearance. The comments are an unjust characterization of events that occurred and should be removed. In addition to being factually inaccurate, he was not provided formal feedback before he received the referral report and the director’s “standards” were disproportionately applied to him. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. STATEMENT OF FACTS: According to the applicant’s TR during the period in question, he was serving in the Regular Air Force and attending a 44-week course at the US Marine Corps War College. In a memorandum dated 9 June 2014, the director at the Marine Corps War College rendered the contested TR to the applicant. In a memorandum dated 11 June 2014, the applicant responded to the TR. Via Special Order JB-005034, dated 1 October 2014, the applicant was promoted to the grade of colonel (O-6). AFI 36-2603, Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records, paragraph 4.7.3, requires that if an applicant has not exhausted all available effective administrative remedies, the application will be denied by the Board on that basis. The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the memorandum prepared by the Air Force office of primary responsibility (OPR), which is attached at Exhibit C. AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSID recommends denial indicating there is no evidence of an error or an injustice. The applicant did not file an appeal through the Evaluation Reports Appeals Board (ERAB) under the provisions of AFI 36-2406, Officer and Enlisted Evaluation Systems. The TR was accomplished in accordance with applicable regulations. Air Force policy states that an evaluation report is accurate as written when it becomes a matter of record. Additionally, it represents the rating chain's best judgment at the time it is rendered. The applicant provided insufficient evidence to show that the referral comments on the TR were inaccurate or unjust; therefore, the inclusions of the referral comments on the TR were appropriate and within the evaluator's authority to document. Moreover, the Senior Air Force Advisor completed a final review of the contested evaluation to ensure that the report was given fair consideration in accordance with the established intent of the governing Air Force Instruction. Regarding the applicant’s arguments about the insufficient feedback he received, there were avenues the applicant could have taken to resolve the issue. When a required feedback does not take place, AFI 36-2406 states, that it is the ratee’s responsibility to notify the rater, and if necessary the rater's rater, when required or requested feedback did not take place. In this case, the applicant does not appear to have sought any remedies from the additional rater of the report to obtain feedback. The applicant also believes the director’s standards were disproportionately applied to him. However, he should have reported this to his rating chain. AFI 36-2406, states that Air Force members must report any form of discrimination to their supervisors or commander and must prove that an evaluator was biased and that the bias affected the person's objectivity to a point that a fair and accurate evaluation was impossible. AFI 36-2406 further states the member must provide factual, specific and substantiated information from credible evidence. To effectively challenge an evaluation, it is necessary to hear from all the members of the rating chain not only for support, but also for clarification/explanation. Therefore, once a report is accepted for file, only strong evidence to the contrary warrants correction or removal from an individual's record. The burden of proof is on the applicant who has not provided compelling evidence to show that the report was unjust or inaccurate at the time it was written. A complete copy of the AFPC/DPSID evaluation is at Exhibit C. APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: On 12 January 2016, a copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant 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 not 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. In this respect, we note this Board is the highest administrative level of appeal within the Air Force. As such, an applicant must first exhaust all available avenues of administrative relief provided by existing law or regulations prior to seeking relief before this Board, as required by the governing Air Force Instruction. The Air Force office of primary responsibility has reviewed this application and indicated that the ERAB is an available avenue of administrative relief the applicant has not first pursued. In view of this, we find his request is not ready for adjudication at this level, as a subordinate level of appeal is available that has not first been pursued. Therefore, in view of the above, 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 that all available avenues of administrative relief have not been exhausted; and the application will only be reconsidered upon submission of documentary evidence indicating that said avenues of administrative relief have been exhausted. ? The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2015-02221 in Executive Session on 22 March 2016, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: , Panel Chair , Member , Member The following documentary evidence was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 26 May 2015, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Memorandum, AFPC/DPSID, dated 11 January 2016. Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 12 January 2016.