RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2010-01710 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ___________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) for the period ending 1 August 2009 be declared void and removed from his record. ___________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: He believes he was singled out by various levels of leadership and forced to retake a physical fitness assessment 8 days after attaining a passing score. In addition, he is being unfairly rated under the training portion of his EPR due to an isolated incident for which he received a Letter of Reprimand (LOR); however, he does not believe since the EPR covers an entire year of supervision that the LOR should be considered when rating him. He appealed to the Enlisted Reports Appeals Board (ERAB); however, his request was denied. In support of his request, the applicant provides a copy of the contested report, a copy of the referral documentation w/atchs, copies of letters of support, a copy of his upgrade training paperwork, and a copy of his AF Form 422, Notification of Air Force Member’s Qualification Status. His complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. ___________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant is currently serving on active duty in the grade of technical sergeant (E-6). Additional relevant facts pertaining to this application, extracted from the applicant’s military records, are contained in the letters prepared by the appropriate offices of the Air Force. Accordingly, there is no need to recite these facts in this Record of Proceedings. ___________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSIDEP recommends denial. DPSIDEP states that although the applicant had a passing fitness score on 21 Jul 09, he was directed to retest 8 days later. The applicant fails to point out the reason he was required to retest was due to his leadership feeling there were some abnormal circumstances with the test results. The applicant could have been given a 59 day extension to allow him another opportunity to test; however, the unit leadership did not feel this course of action was warranted as he passed the first test. As for the applicant’s assertions that the training portion of his EPR focused on an isolated incident of not meeting instructor-directed academic training timelines for which he received an LOR, according to the governing instructions, evaluators are strongly encouraged to comment in performance reports on misconduct or when adverse actions such as Article 15s are administered. Additionally, evaluators are to consider the entire reporting period not just information as of the closeout date. The applicant has not shown a clear error or injustice. The DPSIDEP complete evaluation is at Exhibit B. HQ USAF/A1PP recommends denial. A1PP states the applicant’s EPR is valid and should not be removed due to him receiving a valid failed fitness assessment on 29 Jul 09 and an LOR on 9 Feb 09. A1PP also recommends the invalid fitness assessment score dated 21 Jul 09 be removed from the Air Force Fitness Management System (AFFMS). The HQ USAF/A1PP complete evaluation is at Exhibit C. AFPC/DPSIMC recommends denial. DPSIMC states the applicant received an LOR from his flight superintendent for failing to complete training. He claims he was unjustly rated due to an isolated incident for which he received an LOR. The LOR was accomplished IAW governing regulations. Therefore, DPSIMC cannot support the applicant’s request to remove his EPR from his records. The DPSIMC complete evaluation is at Exhibit D. ___________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on 9 Dec 10 for review and comment within 30 days. As of this date, this office has received no response. ___________________________________________________________________ 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. After reviewing all of the evidence provided, we are not persuaded that the contested report is an inaccurate depiction of the applicant’s performance and demonstrated potential for the period in question; therefore, we agree with the opinions and recommendations of the Air Force offices of primary responsibility and adopt their rationale as the basis for our conclusion that 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 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-2010-01710 in Executive Session on 26 Jan 11, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: The following documentary evidence for Docket Number BC-2010-01710 was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 21 Jan 10, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Letter, AFPC/DPSIDEP, dated 5 Jul 10. Exhibit C. Letter, HQ USAF/A1PP, dated 7 Sep 10. Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/DPSIMC, dated 2 Jun 10. Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 9 Dec 10.