RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2010-04000 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His AF Form 910, Enlisted Performance Report (AB thru TSgt), rendered for the period 26 Oct 06 through 25 Oct 07, be removed from his records. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: His rater signed the EPR notice stating the Record of Counseling (ROC) was in his Personnel Information File (PIF) when it was not. The ROC was never made part of his record and should not have been used when rating his performance for the contested period. In support of his request, the applicant provides a copies of documents extracted from his military personnel records. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. _________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant is currently serving on active duty in the grade of Staff Sergeant (SSgt). The applicant’s EPR profile as a SSgt is listed below: PERIOD ENDING OVERALL EVALUATION 1 Jul 10 4 **9 Nov 09 3 25 Dec 08 4 *25 Oct 07 3 *Contested Report ** Referral Report The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the letter prepared by the appropriate office of the Air Force which is at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSID recommends denial. The applicant did not file an appeal through the Evaluation Reports Appeals Board (ERAB); however, the ERAB reviewed this application and was not convinced the contested report was inaccurate or unjust. AFPC/DPSIDEP states that while the ROC may not have been placed in the applicant’s PIF, the action still took place during the rating period. AFI 36-2406, Officer and Enlisted Evaluation Systems, states that evaluators are strongly encouraged to comment on discreditable misconduct or when adverse actions, such as Letters of Reprimand, Admonishment, or Counseling, or placement on the Control Roster, have been taken. Furthermore, the applicant was provided the opportunity to provide a rebuttal to the action, but failed to do so. More importantly, the rater never commented on the LOC in the contested EPR; consequently, it is safe to assume the rater may not have even considered the ROC incidence as there were no signs to suggest the LOC may have affected the final rating. An evaluation report is considered to represent the rating chain’s best judgment at the time it is rendered. Furthermore, once a report is accepted for file, only strong evidence to the contrary warrants correction or removal from an individual’s record. The burden of proof is on the applicant and he has not provided any evidence to show the contested report was unjust or inaccurate. The complete 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 25 May 11, for review and comment within 30 days. As of this date, no response has been received by this office. _________________________________________________________________ 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 an 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 the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of material error or injustice; the application was denied without a personal appearance; and 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-2010-04000 in Executive Session on 16 Aug 11, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: The following documentary evidence was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 22 Oct 10, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Applicant’s Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPSID, dated 21 Feb 11. Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 25 Mar 11.