RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2010-00155 INDEX CODE: 111.05 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His AF Form 910, Enlisted Performance Report (EPR), rendered for the period 2 June 2008 through 1 June 2009, be removed from his records. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: He was falsely accused of not processing Personnel Reliability Program (PRP) certifications correctly. He provided the necessary documentation in his rebuttal to his commander. After the review of his rebuttal, the commander determined the mistakes were clearly not his fault as stated in his EPR. The assignment technician provided PCS orders to a customer before he had a chance to complete the administrative certification process. The EPR also stated he certified another customer with an expired security clearance; however, the evidence of record shows it had not expired. His supervisor/section chief reviewed and signed off on the PRP portion as being complete and accurate. Lastly, his supervisor and the assignment technician received Letters of Reprimand for their involvement in the PRP program; however, they did not receive referral EPRs. In support of his request, the applicant provides copies of his EPR, a PRP Processing Worksheet, an email, and AF Form 899, Request and Authorization for Permanent Change of Station – Military. The applicant's complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. _________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant is currently serving on active duty Air Force in the grade of technical sergeant. On 2 August 2009, the applicant was issued a referral EPR because of discrepancies found in the PRP and Formal Training Program he managed. The applicant acknowledged receipt of the letter of notification for the referral EPR and submitted comments on his own behalf. The applicant’s performance profile as a technical sergeant: PERIOD ENDING OVERALL RATING 1 Jun 06 5 1 Jun 07 4 1 Jun 08 5 * 1 Jun 09 4 * Contested Report. The applicant did not file an appeal through the Evaluation Reports Appeals Board (ERAB) under the provisions of AFI 36-2401, Officer and Enlisted Evaluation Systems. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: HQ AFPC/DPSIDEP recommends denial. DPSIDEP states the EPR was not a referral report and it was processed in accordance with AFI 36-2401, Table 3.2, Rule 20, Disagreements, which states evaluators, should discuss disagreements when preparing reports. Prior evaluators are first given an opportunity to change the evaluation; however, they will not change their evaluation just to satisfy the evaluator who disagrees. If, after discussion, the disagreement remains, the disagreeing evaluator marks the nonconcur block, initials the block deemed more appropriate, and comments on each item in disagreement. The EPR was processed IAW AF policy and there is no evidence of a clear injustice The complete DPSIDEP evaluation is at Exhibit B. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 2 April 2010 for review and comment within 30 days. As of this date, a response has not been received (Exhibit D). _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT: 1. The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by existing law or regulations. 2. The application was timely filed. 3. Sufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of an injustice warranting removal of the applicant’s contested performance report. After a thorough review of the evidence presented, we believe sufficient evidence has been presented concerning the fairness of the contested report and that the report is not an accurate reflection of his performance during the time period in question. In this regard, we note that during the referral EPR process, the commander found the applicant had not failed to perform his duties as alleged by the rater. Subsequently, the commander marked the nonconcur block, initialed the block he deemed more appropriate and marked the overall performance assessment block in section V with an “Above Average” (4) rating. As a result of these actions the report was no longer a referral. While we note the commander correctly applied the EPR referral procedures, the stigma of the referral report still remains in the applicant’s records. Accordingly, we recommend his records be corrected to the extent set forth below. ____________________________________________________________ THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating to APPLICANT be corrected to show that the AF Form 910, Enlisted Performance Report (AB thru TSGT), rendered for the period 2 June 2008 through 1 June 2009 be declared void and removed from her records. _________________________________________________________________ The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2010-00155 in Executive Session on 28 September 2010 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: Panel Chair Member Member All members voted to correct the records, as recommended. The following documentary evidence was considered in connection with AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2010-00155: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 6 Jan 10, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Letter, AFPC/DPSIDEP, 4 Mar 10. Exhibit C. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 2 Apr 10. Panel Chair