RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-03070 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her Enlisted Performance Report (EPR), rendered for the reporting period of 16 Dec 09 through 15 Dec 10, be declared void and replaced with a corrected version. ______________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: The contested EPR was a draft version that was mistakenly signed and recorded and contains multiple errors, including spelling and incorrect information. Additonally, the contested report omitted a wing stratification. In support of her request, the applicant provides copies of both versions of the EPR, MFRs requesting the change, an AF Form 948, Application For Correction/Removal Of Evaluation Reports, 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 Senior Master Sergeant (E-8), effective and with a date of rank of 1 March 2012. The following is a resume of her EPR ratings: RATING PERIOD PROMOTION RECOMMENDATION * 15 Dec 10 5 15 Dec 09 (MSgt) 5 15 Dec 08 5 15 Jun 08 5 15 Jun 07 5 30 Sep 06 5 30 Sep 05 5 01 Apr 05 (TSgt) 5 01 Apr 04 5 01 Apr 03 5 * Contested Report ________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSID recommends denial of the applicant’s request to substitute her EPR with a corrected version, indicating there is no evidence of an error or injustice. The applicant filed an appeal through the Evaluation Reports Appeals Board (ERAB); however, the ERAB was not convinced the contested report was unjust or inaccurate and her application was denied. A review of both versions of the EPR does reveal multiple requested comment changes; however, the applicant does not provide any substantiating documentation to corroborate changes to the statistical data, specifically aircraft generation statistics and educational data. It also appears as though the requested changes are intended to strengthen the overall impact of each proposed comment or provide stratification to the existing report. However, in accordance with AFI 36-2401, the purpose of an appeal is to correct an error or injustice, not to strenghthen the report for the purpose of future promotion opportunity and it is clear the applicant is proposing changes that are not supported by corroborating evidence. Additionally, any request to add optional statements, specifically stratification, do not normally form the successful basis of an appeal. These statements are not mandatory for inclusion and their omission does not make the report inaccurate, unless it is proven the report is erroneious or unjust based on its content. A complete copy of the 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 27 Aug 12 for review and comment within 30 days. As of this date, no response has been received by this office (Exhibit D). _________________________________________________________________ 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. The Board took notice of the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of the case; however, a majority of the Board agrees with the opinion and recommendation of the Air Force office of primary responsibility and adopts its rationale as the basis for their conclusion the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice. While the applicant contends the EPR submitted was a draft version, and she has provided supporting statements from her chain of command in support of her request, the majority is not convinced she is the victim of an error or injustice. In this respect, the majority notes that she chose to sign the contested report when it was rendered and, in doing so, validated the report’s accuracy. Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, the majority of the Board finds no basis to recommend granting the relief sought in this application. _________________________________________________________________ RECOMMENDATION OF THE BOARD: A majority of the panel finds insufficient evidence of an error or injustice and recommends the application be denied. _________________________________________________________________ The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2012-03070 in Executive Session on 29 January 2013 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: , Panel Chair , Member , Member By a majority vote, the Board voted to deny the application. XXX voted to correct the records and has submitted a minority report, which is attached at Exhibit E. The following documentary evidence for was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 5 Jul 12, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPSID, dated 7 Aug 12. Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 27 Aug 12. Exhibit E. Minority Report, dated 4 Feb 13.