RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF: 			DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2015-04510

  						COUNSEL:  NONE

						HEARING DESIRED:  YES 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His AF IMT 911, Senior Enlisted Performance Report (EPR), with a period of report from 14 Mar 06 to 13 Mar 07, be revised to reflect the appropriate duty title.

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

His EPR reflects the wrong duty title/position as he had left that position over five months earlier and contains inaccurate and false information.  This falsified information may have been used to provide potential benefits to others in his squadron at his detriment.  Furthermore, the ratings on the EPR are inconsistent with the narratives on the form.  The mark-downs were a result of him being discriminated against.  He assumed the position as acting superintendent while the actual superintendent was sent on a deployment.  Upon his colleague’s return from deployment and his colleague reassuming the superintendent position, several negative incidents occurred that would have been detrimental to both the superintendent’s career and the squadron.  However, instead he was used as the scapegoat because he was retiring and non-deployable.  Therefore, his EPR and retirement decoration were affected.  

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

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant initially entered the Regular Air Force on 7 Dec 82.

On 15 Nov 99, according to the applicant’s duty history, his duty title changed to Superintendent, Acquisition Management Complex Security.  

On 1 Sep 05, his duty title changed to Superintendent, Training and Resources.  

On 1 Jan 08, the applicant retired and was credited with 26 years and 24 days of active service.   

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.  In accordance with AFI 36-2401, Correcting Officer and Enlisted Evaluation Reports, dated 10 Mar 06, the Air Force did not require the designated rater to be your immediate supervisor.  Inaccurate designations and failures to change raters can occur when personnel are reassigned, work centers reorganized, functional areas or units realigned.  To prove the applicant’s case, he would need statements from both the individuals who signed the report and from the individuals who believe they should have written the report.  Based on lack of corroborating evidence provided by the applicant and the presumed legitimacy of the original crafting of the EPR, we recommend that the report not be changed to reflect a different duty title.  The applicant has not provided compelling evidence to show that the report was totally unjust or inaccurate as written.

A complete copy of the AFPC/DPSID evaluation is at Exhibit C.

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant refutes virtually every point made by the OPR and argues his supervisor’s signature on the EPR in question is a forgery.  He states the email from his supervisor of record shows he did not sign a low rating EPR for the applicant.  In support of his rebuttal, he provides copies of two EPRs highlighting the differences in the signatures.  Furthermore, the applicant contends his EPR fails to contain information that was on his Air Force Commendation Medal citation.

A complete copy of the applicant’s rebuttal, with attachments, is at Exhibit E.

FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS OF THE BOARD:

Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of an error or injustice.  After a careful review of the applicant's contentions, documentation submitted in support of the request, and the available evidence of record, we are not convinced the applicant has provided sufficient evidence for us to conclude that he is the victim of an error or injustice.  We also note the applicant did not file the application within three years after the alleged error or injustice was discovered, or should have been discovered, as required by Title 10, United States Code, Section 1552 and Air Force Instruction 36-2603.  Therefore, because we do not find it would be in the interest of justice to recommend granting relief, and the applicant has offered no plausible reason for the delay in filing the application, we cannot conclude it would be in the interest of justice to excuse the failure to timely file the application.  Accordingly, we find the application untimely.

THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:

The application was not timely filed and it would not be in the interest of justice to waive the untimeliness.  It is the decision of the Board, therefore, to reject the application as untimely.

The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2015-04510 in Executive Session on 9 Feb 17 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

	, Panel Chair
	, Member
	, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

	Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 17 Oct 15, w/atchs.
	Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
	Exhibit C.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPSID, dated 7 Mar 16.
	Exhibit D.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 8 Jun 16.
	Exhibit E.  Applicant’s Rebuttal, postmarked 29 Jul 16,
  w/atchs. 

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.