RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBERS: BC-2010-02992 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His Enlisted Performance Report (EPR), rendered for the period 3 April 2009 through 2 April 2010, be voided and removed from his records, and, he be allowed to cross-train into a different Air Force Specialty Code (AFSC) and continue to serve in the Regular Air Force or Air Force Reserve. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: His referral EPR should be voided due to mishandling, errors, and procedures not properly followed leading up to his referral EPR. The referral EPR forced his retirement; costing him possible promotion, the possibility of reclassification, and other effects. There were discrepancies in the system beyond his control which caused his Career Development Course (CDC) books not to be issued until a year after he began retraining. He completed the training portion; however, he had to wait 18 months for a security clearance which delayed his training for another 18 months. In addition, he only received one feedback session while at his duty station at Davis-Monthan Air Force Base. He also had motion sickness while flying and severe allergies ever since arriving in Arizona. In support of his appeal, the applicant provides a personal statement; a copy of his referral EPR; copies of his Air Force Forms 8, Certificate of Aircrew Qualification, with continuation sheets; a Commander’s Conditional Release; an electronic communication; an Education/Training Report; and a memorandum for record. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. _________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant is a former member of the Regular Air Force who retired effective 1 February 2011 in the grade of technical sergeant (E-6). The following is a resume of the applicant’s EPR profile: PERIOD ENDING PROMOTION RECOMMENDATION 24 Jun 96 (SrA) 3 1 May 97 4 1 May 98 4 1 May 99 4 1 May 00 (SSgt) 5 16 Feb 01 5 16 Feb 02 4 16 Jun 02 4 16 Jun 03 (Referral) 3 16 Jun 04 3 14 Jan 05 4 14 Jan 06 (TSgt) 5 13 Jul 06 5 2 Apr 09 Education/Training Report 2 Apr 10 (Referral)* 3 * Contested report _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSID recommends denial. DPSID states there is no evidence to indicate the contested EPR is unjust or inaccurate. The applicant cross-trained into a new career field and during this process there appeared to be some discrepancies and a setback during the retraining process. Although the applicant finished the academic portion first, his process was delayed for 18 months waiting on his security clearance. This caused him to restart his training and to wait another year before his CDCs were issued. The applicant believes that since these errors fell during the testing cycle, it affected his scores during promotion testing. DPSID states the applicant first contends the comment in the contested EPR in Section III, Block 1: “Sent home from AOR early due to unsafe performance of primary duty -- left vital deployment manning position,” was made because the rater believed the applicant to be unsafe in the performance of his primary duties. This incident caused the applicant to be disqualified from his career field, but there were other incidents where he failed to comply with the requirements of his duties. The second contested comment in Section III, Block 2: “Displayed disgruntled attitude when tasked to perform duties over a weekend -– argued w/ldrship prior to task.” The applicant contends he was never told of this perception of the incident in question. He does admit that he questioned why he was tasked for both days as the supervising Non-Commissioned Officer (NCO) of Extra Duty Flight, when he was under the impression that it was split between two NCOs. The applicant believes his third contested comment in Section III, Block 4: “Failed to maintain aircrew qualification; received second “Q3” within one year timeframe – removed from training,” does not fully address the events that led to the disqualification and discounts anything else he did in his job. DPSID indicates the applicant failed to provide supporting documentation to prove his accusations. An evaluation report is considered to represent the rating chain’s best judgment at the time it is rendered. Once a report is accepted for file, only strong evidence to the contrary warrants correction or removal from a member’s record. The applicant has not substantiated the contested report was not rendered in good faith by all evaluators based on the knowledge of his performance at the time. The applicant also contends he only received one feedback which was conducted approximately back in April 2009; however, the EPR has a date of 30 December 2009. He believes if he had been made aware of these weaknesses, he could have worked with his supervisor to devise an aggressive training plan to address and overcome any deficiencies that were identified in his performance reports. However, the lack of feedback or counseling, by itself, is not sufficient justification to challenge the accuracy or justness of a report. Evaluators must confirm that they did not provide counseling or feedback, and that it directly resulted in a fair evaluation. The complete DPSID evaluation is at Exhibit C. AFPC/DPSOE recommends denial. DPSOE states the fact the applicant received a referral report for the period 3 April 2009 through 2 April 2010, rendered him ineligible for promotion consideration in accordance with Air Force Instruction 36-2502, Table 1.1, Rule 22. Should the Board decide to remove the contested report, the applicant would be entitled to supplemental promotion consideration beginning with cycle 10E7. The complete DPSOE evaluation is at Exhibit D. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on 12 November 2010, 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. 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 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-2010-02992 in Executive Session on 28 April 2011, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: The following documentary evidence was considered in connection with AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2010-02992: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 6 Aug 10, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPSID, dated 4 Oct 10. Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/DPSOE, dated 19 Oct 10. Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 12 Nov 10.