RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF: 			DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2015-04795

  						COUNSEL:  NONE

						HEARING DESIRED:  NO 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

Her Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) signed February 2015 be replaced by her EPR signed July 2015 and subsequently promoted to Technical Sergeant (E-6).  

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

An erroneous EPR was made a matter of record.  After the discrepant EPR was identified, an attempt was made to replace it with the correct EPR.  The applicant provides statements from her rater, additional rater, and unit commander.

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

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant initially entered the Regular Air Force on 27 Nov 01.  

For the reporting period from 16 Dec 13 through 31 Jan 15, the applicant’s AF Form 910, Enlisted Performance Report, block V, reflects an overall rating of “4” (Above Average) in both the rater’s and additional rater’s assessment.

On 22 Nov 16, the applicant was furnished an honorable discharge, and was credited with 14 years, 11 months, and 26 days of active service.

The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are described in the memorandum prepared by the Air Force offices of primary responsibility (OPR), which is included at Exhibit C.

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPSID recommends denying the applicant’s request, indicating there is a lack of corroborating evidence provided by the applicant to show that the report was unjust or inaccurate as written.  The applicant did file an appeal through the Evaluation Reports Appeals Board (ERAB); however, the ERAB was not convinced there was an error or injustice and denied the applicant’s request for relief.  
Once a report is accepted for file, only strong evidence to the contrary warrants correction or removal from an individual’s record.  AFI 36-2406, Officer and Enlisted Evaluation Systems, paragraph 10.2.4, states the Board [ERAB] will not consider nor approve requests to change an evaluator’s ratings or comments.  Statements from the rating chain should cite important facts or circumstances that were unknown when the report was signed.  The applicant provides a substitute report accomplished five months later with an overall rating of “4” by the rater and an overall rating of “5” by the additional rater and unit commander, both who reference “no feedback” as justification for the higher assessment; however, if the applicant was concerned about her lack of feedback, there are avenues to resolve this issue.  When required feedback does not take place in accordance with the AFI, it is the ratee’s responsibility to notify the rater, and if necessary, the rater’s rater when required feedback did not take place.  Furthermore, a rater’s failure to conduct a required or requested feedback session does not invalidate a performance report.  In closing, the applicant failed to provide any information or clarification from all the rating officials on the contested and failed to substantiate the contested report was rendered inaccurately and not in good faith by all evaluators based on knowledge available at the time.  

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 10 Jun 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 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 or injustice.  Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no basis to recommend granting the requested relief.

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-2015-04795 in Executive Session on 28 Mar 17 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

	, Panel Chair
	, Member
	, Member

The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2015-04795 was considered:

	Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 28 Oct 15, w/atchs.
	Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
	Exhibit C.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPSID, dated 6 May 16.
	Exhibit D.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 10 Jun 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.