RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF: 			DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2015-03874

  						COUNSEL:  NONE

						HEARING DESIRED: YES 

APPLICANT REQUESTS:

Her Overall Performance Assessment ratings from her rater of “Average (3)” and from her additional rater of “Needs Improvement (2)” on her enlisted performance report (EPR) covering the period 2 Jan 12 through 31 Dec 13 be changed to “Above Average (4).”

APPLICANT CONTENDS:

The EPR was a defamation of her character.  Her Overall Performance Assessment ratings are unjust due to a lack of documentation to support eight false statements which appear in the EPR; no formal feedback or counseling was documented during the reporting period; bullets statements were untrue and exaggerated; her letter of counseling (LOC) and letter of reprimand (LOR) were supposed to have remained for internal use only; a number of her personal and medical issues were unfairly used to discredit her character; her completed EPR was revised in Jul 14 without her being given a reason; and, she fears her rebuttal to the EPR was not considered.  

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

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant served in Air Force Reserve in the grade of Staff Sergeant (SSgt) during the matter under review. 

On 31 Dec 13, the applicant was issued a referral EPR covering the period 1 Jan 12 through 31 Dec 13, on which she was rated “Does Not Meet Standards” in Block 2, Standards, Conduct, Character & Military Bearing, Block 4, Training Requirements, and Block 5, Teamwork/Followership; and, on which she received Overall Performance Assessment ratings in Block 5 of “Average (3)” from her rater, and “Needs Improvement (2)” from her additional rater.  The statements on EPR included:  

	a.  Member was issued an LOR for continuous failure to abide by unit timeliness standards – needs improvement.

	b.  She has failed to meet DoD 8570 training requirements to maintain AFSC.

	c.  Lacked true understanding of followership roles—reduced quality of shop cohesiveness.

	d.  Member did not meet training requirements or unit standards to be considered for promotion.

	e.  (The applicant) did not demonstrate the technical and leadership skills of an average NCO during this period.

	f.  (The applicant) struggled with reporting to duty in a timely manner and building cohesive team relationships.
 
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:

ARPC/DPTS recommends denial indicating there is no evidence of an error or an injustice.  In accordance with AFI 36-2406, Officer and Enlisted Evaluation System, paragraph 10.1., the Evaluation Reports Appeal Board (ERAB) was established to provide all Air Force personnel with an avenue of relief for correcting errors or injustices in evaluations at the lowest possible level.  An applicant’s first avenue of relief for correcting an evaluation is through the ERAB, which is accessible via the vMPF/vPC.  

Addressing the applicant’s contentions, she did not explain where the eight false statements she alleges appear in her EPR are located or what they are.  The documentation she submitted indicates she was, in fact, given the opportunity to respond to the referral EPR, as well as her LOR, dated 18 Apr 13.  She also contends her EPR was revised in Jul 14, but she was not told the reason for the revision.  A certified true copy of her EPR with closeout of 31 Dec 13 was accomplished dated 5 Sep 14.  A comparison of the original EPR and certified true copy shows a change in the last bullet of Section VI.  The statement “Further enhance unit participation & team work skills; improve technical expertise on cyber warfare domain” was changed to “(The applicant) struggled with reporting to duty in a timely manner and building cohesive team relationships.”  Further,  in accordance with AFI 36-2406, paragraph 10.2.4.6, the Air Force Personnel Center (AFPC) is prohibited from approving a request to change (except for deletions) an evaluator's ratings or comments if the evaluator does not support the change, and when an evaluator supports changing ratings, all subsequent evaluators must also agree to the change.  The applicant has not provided any letters from anyone who can substantiate her many claims.  

Recommend denial. The applicant did not exhaust all other avenues of relief before submitting her application to the AFBCMR.  

A complete copy of the ARPC/DPTS 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 6 Apr 16 for review and comment within 30 days (Exhibit D).  As of this date, no response has been received by this office.

THE BOARD CONCLUDES:

1.  The applicant failed to exhaust 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 there is an available avenue of administrative relief the applicant has not first pursued.  In view of this, we find this application is not ripe for adjudication at this level as there exists a subordinate level of appeal that has not first been depleted.  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:

The applicant be notified all available avenues of administrative relief have not been exhausted; and the application will only be reconsidered upon submission of documentary evidence indicating said avenues of administrative relief have been exhausted.  

The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2015-03874 in Executive Session on 15 Dec 16 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

	Panel Chair
	Member
	Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

	Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 3 Sep 15, w/atchs.
	Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
	Exhibit C.  Memorandum, ARPC/DPTS, dated 9 Mar 16, w/atchs.
	Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 6 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.