RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2017-02505

 	COUNSEL: NONE
	
	HEARING: NO

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

1. His Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) with a closeout date of 30 Sep 15 be declared void and removed from his records.

2. A formal inquiry be initiated to find out why AFPC/DP2SPE was allowed to make decisions regarding their corrective actions when there is clear guidance in the governing instructions.

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The EPR in question had an unauthorized promotion statement, which after applying to the Evaluation Report Appeals Board (ERAB) it was decided to swap comments.  However, this action was not authorized as it is prohibited per the governing instructions.  In addition, there were no statements of approval by the evaluators.  The applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant is currently serving in the Regular Air Force in the grade of master sergeant.    His EPR for the period of 23 Sep 14 thru 30 Sep 15 reflects he “Exceeded some, but not all expectations.”  For more information, see the excerpt of the applicant’s record at Exhibit B and the advisory at Exhibit C.

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DP3SP recommends denying the application.  The applicant has not provided compelling evidence to substantiate the contested EPR was corrected unjustly or inaccurately by the ERAB.  

The applicant filed an appeal through the ERAB under the provisions of AFI 36-2406, Officer and Enlisted Evaluation Systems  and was denied relief to void the EPR.  However, the ERAB directed the comment in section VIII to be swapped with the comment in section IX to comply with governing instructions.  

The applicant contends the corrective actions directed by the ERAB was prohibited IAW AFI 36-2406 para 10.2.4.6.  Para 10.2.4 outlines Prohibited Requests and states that the Board will not consider nor approve requests to: (10.2.4.6) Change (except for deletions) an evaluator’s ratings or comments if the evaluator does not support the change.  This paragraph (and subsequent paragraphs) is only applicable to the applicants, to advise the applicant of the requests that will not be considered nor approved by the ERAB.  The ERAB operated within their authority in directing to swap the comments to ensure the evaluation was in compliance with the governing instructions. 

The applicant also requested a formal inquiry/investigation be initiated into AFPC/DP2SPE to determine why they are allowed to “make decisions like this.”  However, AFPC/DP2SPE has no equity in the decisions rendered by the ERAB; they only manage the appeals process and executes board decisions.  The complete advisory is at Exhibit C.

APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The Board sent a copy of the Air Force evaluation to the applicant on 12 Mar 18 for comment (Exhibit D), and in an undated letter, the applicant states he referred to AFPC/DP2SPE when he should have referred to the ERAB.  He contends the comment was prohibited and by moving it to a different block on the report changes who said the comment.  He also provides rationale as to why he was given the ratings on the front of the EPR.  The applicant’s complete response is at Exhibit E.

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

1.  The application was timely filed.

2.  The applicant exhausted all available avenues of non-judicial relief before applying to the Board.

3.  After thoroughly reviewing all Exhibits, it is the Board’s opinion that the applicant is not the victim of an error and injustice.  The Board concurs with the rationale and recommendation of AFPC/DP3SP regarding his request to remove or void his EPR and finds that a preponderance of the evidence does not substantiate the applicant’s contentions.  The Board is not persuaded that the contested report is not a true and accurate assessment of his demonstrated potential during the specified time period or that the statements on his report were in error or contrary to the provisions of the governing instruction.  Additionally, the Board is not an investigative body, as such, his request to initiate a formal inquiry is outside the Board’s purview.  Therefore, the Board recommends against correcting the applicant’s records.

THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT:

The applicant be informed the evidence did not demonstrate material error or injustice, and the application will only be reconsidered upon receipt of relevant evidence not already considered by the Board.

CERTIFICATION:

The following quorum of the Board, as defined in Air Force Instruction (AFI) 36-2603, Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records (AFBCMR), paragraph 1.5, considered Docket Number BC-2017-02505 in Executive Session on 8 May 18:

, Panel Chair 
, Panel Member
, Panel Member

All members voted not to correct the record.  The panel considered the following:

Exhibit A:	Application, DD Form 149, w/atchs, dated 16 May 17.
Exhibit B:	Documentary evidence, including relevant excerpts from official records.
Exhibit C:	Advisory opinion, AFPC/DP3SP, dated 4 Mar 18.
Exhibit D:	Notification of Advisory, SAF/MRBC to applicant, dated 12 Mar 18.
Exhibit E:	Applicant’s response, undated.

Taken together with all Exhibits, this document constitutes the true and complete Record of Proceedings required by AFI 36-2603, paragraph 4.11.9 pertaining to Docket Number BC-2017-02505.