RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2010-04487 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) for the reporting period of 2 May 2009 through 1 January 2010 be voided. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: Her rater was incorrect on the report. She was never given a feedback during the reporting period or on the day specified on the second page of her EPR. The Embassy Canberra closed on 12 October 2009 for Columbus Day. At no time did she receive any counseling stating that her performance changed from the previous EPR rating of “5.” She believes her Duty Air Force Specialty Code (DAFSC) is incorrect and she does not agree with the inconsistencies of the “4” rating. She was told by her Senior Enlisted Advisor that her rating was a “5” when he reviewed her EPR. The “promote now” statement and a rating of “4” is inconsistent with Senior Rater endorsement. In support of her request, the applicant provides a personal statement, a copy of the contested report, letters of recommendation, correspondence between the applicant and her rating chain and other supporting documentation. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. _________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant is currently serving in the Regular Air Force in the grade of master sergeant (E-7), with a date of rank of 1 June 2007. The following is a resume of her EPR ratings: RATING PERIOD PROMOTION RECOMMENDATION * 1 Jan 10 4 1 May 09 5 1 May 08 (MSgt) 5 8 Apr 07 5 7 Sep 06 5 7 Sep 05 5 1 Apr 04 5 14 Sep 03 (TSgt) 5 14 Sep 02 5 14 Sep 01 (SSgt) 5 * Contested Report _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPAAS addresses the applicant’s DAFSC. Based on their review, the applicant’s DAFSC was 8P100 from 2 June 2008 through 15 February 2010. The complete DPAAS evaluation is at Exhibit C. AFPC/DPSIDEP recommends denial. DPSIDEP notes the applicant filed an appeal through the Evaluation Reports Appeals Board (ERAB); however, the application was denied. DPSIDEP states the applicant contends that her rater was incorrect on her EPR. However, in her supporting documents, she submits e- mail traffic discussing and confirming when feedback was conducted. Additionally, AFI 36-2401, Correcting Officer and Enlisted Evaluation Reports, does not require the designated rater to be the immediate supervisor. The applicant also contends her DAFSC was incorrect on her EPR. A review of the Military Personnel Data System (MILPDS), shows the applicant’s DAFSC did not change until 16 February 2010, after the EPR closed out. The applicant does not agree with the inconsistencies of the “4” rating. AFI 36-2406, Officer and Enlisted Evaluation Systems, does not prohibit Senior Rater Endorsement from granting a “4” on an EPR. DPSIDEP states an evaluation report is considered to represent the rating chain’s best judgment at the time it is rendered. Only strong evidence warrants correction or removal of a performance report from an individual’s record. The complete DPSIDEP evaluation is at Exhibit D. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant contends there are multiple administrative errors and this is an injustice because of her medical condition. The medical condition was so severe she had to be medically evacuated to Tripler Army Medical Center in Hawaii in May 2009. She also states there was confusion as to if she had a rater assigned to her. She was never given a feedback during this rating period. The only feedback she was given was in October 2008, when an AF Form 932, Performance Feedback Worksheet, was typed and handed to her. Additionally, the rating “4” is inconsistent with Senior Rater endorsement. She requests that this EPR be voided because it is unjust to receive an EPR with an unsubstantied “4” rating while in patient status and no rater assigned. The applicant’s complete response, with attachments, is at Exhibit E _________________________________________________________________ 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. The applicant's complete submission was thoroughly reviewed and her contentions were duly noted. However, we do not find the applicant’s assertions and the documentation presented in support of her appeal sufficiently persuasive to override the rationale provided by the Air Force offices of primary responsibility (OPRs). The OPRs have adequately addressed the applicant’s contentions and we agree with their opinions and recommendations. Therefore we adopt the rationale expressed as the basis for our decision that the applicant has not sustained her burden of having suffered either an error or an injustice. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD RECOMMENDS 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-2010-04487 in Executive Session on 9 August 2011 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: The following documentary evidence for was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 30 Nov 10, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPAAS, dated 16 Feb 11. Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/DPSIDEP, dated 15 Jun 11. Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 24 Jun 11. Exhibit F. Letter, Applicant’s Response, dated 20 Jul 11.