RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF: 			DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2015-02936

  						COUNSEL:  NONE

						HEARING DESIRED:  YES 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

Her Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) for the period 20 Dec 13 through 19 Dec 14 be removed.  

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

She suffered unfair treatment under her previous rater’s supervision and firmly believes that racial and gender biases along with regular abuse of authority created an extremely hostile work environment.  The toxicity negatively affected the supervisor-subordinate relationship resulting in deliberate manipulation of the evaluation system as retaliation for reporting discriminatory remarks, practices, and other deviations from Air Force’s standards of conduct.  

The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant entered the Regular Air Force on 12 Oct 94.

The applicant was assigned to the 18th Medical Support Squadron, Kadena Air Base, Japan, and received an Air Force Form 911, Enlisted Performance Report (EPR), with a 20 Dec 13 to 19 Dec 14 report period, with an overall performance assessment of “above average.”

On 17 Nov 14, according to documents provided by the applicant, she received a letter of counseling for being disrespectful toward a superior commissioned officer by the 18th Medical Support Squadron Commander.  

On 18 Nov 14, according to documents provided by the applicant, she responded to the letter of counseling feeling the disciplinary action was reprisal as a result of previous incidents and was arbitrary, capricious, inappropriate, and/or abuse of authority.  

On 2 Dec 14, a Commander-Directed Investigation (CDI) was initiated regarding allegations of unlawful discrimination and conduct unbecoming an officer and a gentleman.  

On 23 Dec 14, the CDI was published and all allegations were unsubstantiated and on 8 Jan 15, the 18 WG/JA found it legally sufficient (Exhibit C).  

On 13 Apr 15, according to the documents provided by the applicant, she applied to the Evaluation Reports and Appeals Board (ERAB) to have her EPR in question voided.

On 22 Jun 15, according to documents provided by the applicant, she was notified the ERAB denied her request as they were not convinced the original report was unjust or wrong.

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 D.    

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPSID recommends denial indicating there is no evidence of an error or an injustice indicating she failed to provide sufficient evidence the contested EPR was rendered unfairly or unjustly.  Air Force policy is that an evaluation report is accurate as written when it becomes a matter of record and it is considered to represent the rating chain's best judgment at the time it is rendered.  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.  Although the applicant alleges there was racial and gender biases, she does not provide substantial evidence to support her claims and the CDI conducted to review these allegations, failed to substantiate her claims.  A complete copy of the AFPC/DPSID evaluation is at Exhibit D.

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 8 Apr 16 for review and comment 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.  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 (OPR) and adopt its rationale as the basis for our conclusion the applicant has not been the victim of an error of injustice.  In addition, the applicant alleges she has been the victim of a reprisal and has not been afforded full protection under the Whistleblower Protection Act (10 USC § 1034).  In her case, she filed a complaint and a CDI was conducted.  However, we found the CDI was adequate, not technically flawed, and none of the applicant’s allegations against her commander were substantiated.  Furthermore, based upon our own independent review, we determined the applicant has not established that the adverse actions she cites were the result of reprisal.  In reaching this determination, we note the applicant did not submit direct evidence, such as an Inspector General (IG) or Military Equal Opportunity (MEO) report to support her assertions.  Therefore, we did not find the applicant has been a victim reprisal under 10 USC § 1034.  In view of the above and in the absence of evidence to the contrary, 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-2015-02936 in Executive Session on 16 Aug 16 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

	, Panel Chair
	, Member
	, Member

The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2015-02936 was considered:

	Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 1 Jul 15, w/atchs.
	Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
	Exhibit C.  Memorandum, 18 WG/JA, dated 8 Jan 15,
  w/attached CDI, dated 23 Dec 14, Withdrawn
Exhibit D.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPSID, dated 6 Apr 16.
	Exhibit E.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 8 Apr 16.

Pursuant to paragraph 1 of AFI 36-2603 (Title 32 Code of Federal Regulations, Part 865.1), it is certified that a quorum was present at the Board's review and deliberations, and that the foregoing is a true and complete record of the Board's proceedings in the above entitled matter.