RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2010-02279 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) rendered for the period 3 Mar 09 thru 2 Mar 10 be removed from his records. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: The EPR is unjust due to the improper management of supervising officials. The contested report was written with only 123 days of supervision. His previous supervisor had 242 days of supervision prior to his permanent change of station. A change of reporting official (CRO) should have been accomplished prior to his departure to allow a fair amount of time for him and his new supervisor. In support of the request, the applicant provides personal statements, an AF IMT Form 910, Enlisted Performance Report (AB thru TSgt) (used as a Performance Feedback Worksheet), and a copy of the contested report. The applicant's complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. _________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant is presently serving in the Regular Air Force in the grade of technical sergeant. In accordance with AFI-36-2406, Officer and Enlisted Evaluation Systems, Table 3.7, Note 6, the close-out date for EPRs is one year from the previous EPR close-out date or when 120 calendar days of supervision have passed. A resume of the applicant’s EPRs follows: CLOSE-OUT DATE OVERALL RATING 19 Jul 01 5 20 Jul 02 5 20 Jul 03 5 2 Mar 04 5 2 Mar 05 5 2 Mar 06 5 2 Mar 07 5 2 Mar 08 5 2 Mar 09 5 *2 Mar 10 4 *Contested Report. Other relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the evaluation prepared by HQ AFPC/DPSID, which is at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: HQ AFPC/DPSID recommends denial. DPSIDP states the EPR was written in accordance with AFI 36-2406 and there is no evidence the report is unjust or inaccurate. Further, the applicant has not substantiated the contested report was not rendered in good faith by all evaluators based on knowledge available at the time. DPSID further states the supervision between the applicant and his first rater appears to have begun on 3 Mar 09. However, the rater was deployed from 23 Jan 09 through 30 Jul 09, deducting 150 days of supervision. When the rater returned from his deployment, he was selected for an assignment, but was also scheduled to attend Squadron Officer School (SOS). Prior to the officer leaving for SOS, there were only 45 days of supervision. The rater went to SOS on or about 14 Sep 09 through 16 Oct 09, deducting another 33 days of supervision. In accordance with AFI 36-2406, Table 3.2, Note 6a, deduct all periods of 30 or more consecutive calendar days during which the ratee did not perform normal duties under the rater’s supervision because either the rater or the ratee was on temporary duty, on leave, in a patient status, in classroom training (such as attending PME at home station), absent without leave, dropped from the rolls, or in confinement. With the days deducted from when supervision began, there were only 94 days of supervision, less than the required 120 days of supervision. However, a CRO was accomplished on 30 Oct 09 to the rater who signed his evaluation. From the time the new rater was assigned until the EPR close-out on 2 Mar 10 there were 124 days of supervision, making the evaluation an accurate report in accordance with AFI 36-2406. The applicant did not file an appeal through the Evaluation Reports Appeals Board (ERAB) under the provisions of AFI 36-2401, Correcting Officer and Enlisted Evaluation Reports; however, the ERAB reviewed this application and recommends denial. The complete HQ 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 8 Oct 10 for review and comment within 30 days (Exhibit D). As of this date, this office has not received a 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. 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 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 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 Docket Number BC-2010-02279 in Executive Session on 5 January 2011, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: The following documentary evidence was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 24 May 10, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Letter, HQ AFPC/DPSID, dated 25 Aug 10. Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 8 Oct 10.