RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2010-01282 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ___________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 1. His Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) with a closeout date of 1 Feb 07 be declared void and removed from his records. 2. He be promoted to master sergeant (E-7) and receive all back pay and allowances. 3. He be awarded the Air Force Commendation Medal (Request withdrawn by leter of 11 Aug 10). ___________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: He believes he received an overall “4” EPR due to being retaliated against by his supervisor for not updating the Air Force Fitness Management (AFFMS) with a false fitness assessment score. He received positive feedback during the reporting period in question with little to no room for improvement as annotated on the AF IMT 931, Performance Feedback Worksheet. His accomplishments during the rating period included completing his Bachelor of Science degree; a second Associate’s degree; completing the Non- Commissioned Officer Academy course; and deploying to Iraq where he earned an Army Achievement Medal. His past as well as current EPRs have all been excellent, with the exception of the contested report. His behaviors, actions, and work ethics have been the same throughout his career; therefore, he asks for this one EPR to be removed from his records. He did not submit this request until now because he could not find the email communications regarding the specific issues involved that shows retaliation on his supervisors’ behalf; he since found the email communications that supports his contentions. The EPR has had and will continue to have a negative impact on his progression and senior enlisted opportunities in the Air Force. In support of his request, the applicant provides a copy of email communications, a copy of his test history, a copy of his rater initial/follow-up performance feedback notification, copies of his AF IMT 931, copies of his diplomas, a copy of his decoration recommendation and citation, copies of his EPRs, a copy of his Weighted Airman Promotion System Score Notice, a copy of his Decor 6, and a copy of his Application for Correction/Removal of Evaluation Report. His complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. ___________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant is currently serving on active duty in the grade of master sergeant, having assumed that grade effective and with a date of rank of 1 Dec 09. The applicant was first considered for promotion to master sergeant during cycle 08E7. His score was 128.25 and his decoration score was 4.00 for a total score of 324.76. The score required for promotion during that cycle was 324.89. The applicant missed promotion by .13 points. ___________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSIDEP recommends denial. DPSIDEP states the applicant filed an appeal with the Evaluation Reports Appeals Board (ERAB); however, the ERAB was not convinced the report was inaccurate or unjust and denied relief. The applicant believes his supervisor retaliated against him for refusing to input an invalidated fitness assessment score into the AFFMS. It appears suspicious that the applicant’s rater, who had been exempt twice from taking the fitness test which seldom happens, asked him to update the fitness system with invalidated data; however, there is no documentation to verify the rater’s status at the time of the exemptions. Although the rater’s actions appear to be questionable, there is no evidence of retaliation. The applicant did not provide any evidence to support his contention of retaliation. DPSIDEP would like to know what actions the applicant took to report the incident; did he notify his chain of command? DPSIDEP believes that if the applicant felt reprisal he would have addressed the issue to his rating chain at the time; not three years later and after missing promotion by .13 points. DPSIDEP notes the applicant did not provide any information on what action he took to fix the alleged reprisal prior to this time. Therefore, they cannot support his request. The DPSIDEP complete evaluation is at Exhibit B. AFPC/DPSOE does not provide a recommendation. DPSOE addresses the promotion issue only. DPSOE states that if only the EPR is removed from his records his score would increase to 331.51 and if only the AFCM were added his score would increase to 327.76; if either occurs the applicant would have been selected for promotion to master sergeant. However, IAW the governing regulation, supplemental consideration may not be granted if the error or omission appeared on the member’s DVR and no corrective or follow- up action was taken by the member prior to the promotion selection date. In this case, the applicant discovered he missed promotion by less than .13 points, but did not take corrective action until 2 Feb 10 which was well after selections were made on 11 Jun 08 and released on 26 Jun 08. DPSOE defers to DEPSIDEP regarding the removal of the contested report and to DPSIDR regarding the award of the AFCM. The DPSOE complete evaluation is at Exhibit C. ___________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant responded by withdrawing his request to be awarded the AFCM. He responds to the Air Force advisory by stating his supervisor worked directly with the commander; first sergeant, and operations chief. He believes his chain of command only knew him through processing his paperwork and had more trust with his supervisor because they personally knew him. He remembers informing the operations chief about the situation only to be told to retape his supervisor and that it would work itself out. The chief stated the supervisor would get in shape and for him not to worry. He did not realize he received a “4” EPR until he arrived at Ellsworth AFB, SD. The Automated Records Management System showed it was updated by AFPC on 19 Jun 07, making it a matter of record, and therefore, he could not challenge his chain of command. He goes into further detail on what actions he took in his rebuttal and reiterates his original contentions. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachment, is at Exihibit 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. Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of error or injustice. We note the applicant’s assertion that due to his refusal to enter erroneous fitness data into the AFFMS at his rater’s request, a personality conflict developed, which led to the applicant receiving an unfair performance evaluation. However, while the applicant does provide documentation that appears to paint his rater in a bad light, he has not provided sufficient evidence that shows that the rating he received is not a fair assessment of his potential or was based on anything other than his actual duty performance. We further note, as pointed out by the Air Force office of responsibility that he has not provided any support for his request from anyone else in his rating chain or that he as least made them aware of the problems he was experiencing with the rater. As such, even considering his overall performance history, based on the lack of corroborating evidence or at least the view of the members of his rating chain, we are not persuaded that the requested relief should be granted. In addition, since we have determined no basis exists to remove the aforementioned EPR, favorable consideration for promotion to master sergeant is not warranted. Therefore, in the absence of persuasive evidence to the contrary, we find no basis to recommend granting the relief sought in this application. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of material error or injustice; that the application was denied without a personal appearance; and that 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-2010-01282 in Executive Session on 19 Jan 11, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: , Panel Chair , Member , Member The following documentary evidence was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 30 Mar 10, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Letter, AFPC/DPSIDEP, dated 3 Jun 10. Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPSOE, dated 23 Jun 10. Exhibit D. Letter, Applicant, dated 30 Jul 10. Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 27 Aug 10. Exhibit F. Letter, Applicant, dated 14 Sep 10. Panel Chair