RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-02301 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 1. The Enlisted Performance Reports (EPRs), closing 28 Oct 11, 17 Apr 12 (referral), 29 Jan 13, and 29 Apr 13, be removed from his records. 2. His administrative demotion to the grade of staff sergeant (E-5) and all associated documents be removed from his records and his grade to technical sergeant (E-6), with a date of rank (DOR) of 1 Nov 06 be reinstated. 3. The applicant is apparently requesting supplemental consideration for promotion to the grade of master sergeant (E-7) during cycle 12E7. APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 1. He contested EPRs were affected by the three previously contested Fitness Assessments (7 Feb 11, 4 May 11, and 16 Feb 12), which were subsequently invalidated and removed from his records by the AFBCMR. As such, these reports should be removed from his records as well. 2. The erroneous FA results also resulted in his administrative demotion to the grade of staff sergeant (E-5), effective 1 Aug 11. Furthermore, were it not for this unjust demotion, he would have been eligible to compete for promotion to the grade of master sergeant during promotion cycle 12E7. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant served in the Regular Air Force in the grade of technical sergeant (E-6) prior to the events under review. On 13 June 11, the applicant was served with a Notification of Demotion Action memorandum for failure to fulfill his duties as a Noncommissioned Officer (NCO), having failed six of his last seven consecutive FAs. On 15 Jun 11, the applicant submitted a response to the proposed administrative demotion. The applicant’s fitness assessment history, as it existed on the date the demotion action was rendered, is as follows: Date Composite Score Rating * 4 May 11 69.80 Unsatisfactory * 7 Feb 11 66.60 Unsatisfactory 10 Nov 10 62.60 Unsatisfactory 29 Apr 10 75.75 Good 29 Jan 10 65.50 Poor 14 Oct 09 72.75 Poor 7 Aug 09 55.65 Poor 28 Aug 08 75.05 Good * Removed by the AFBCMR on 4 Apr 13 (AFBCMR Docket Number BC- 2012-03121) Note: After the applicant’s 29 Apr 10 FA, a new rating scale (Unsatisfactory, Satisfactory, Excellent) was implemented across the Air Force. On 1 Aug 11, the action was found legally sufficient and it was noted that the action complied with AFI 36-2502, Airman Promotion/Demotion Programs, dated 31 Dec 09, in that administrative demotion is an authorized response when a member fails four or more FAs. On 9 Aug 11, the Demotion Authority approved the demotion action and, on that date, the applicant acknowledged receipt of the decision. On 11 Aug 11, the applicant submitted another response to the administrative demotion action. On 12 Aug 11, the applicant indicated that he would appeal the decision and submitted additional written matters on his behalf. On 25 Aug 11, after reviewing the additional documentation submitted by the applicant his appeal was denied. On 9 Sept 11, the applicant was demoted from the grade of technical sergeant (E-6) to staff sergeant (E-5), with a DOR of 1 Aug 11. On 16 Feb 12, the applicant participated in a FA where he attained an overall score of 72.00, which constituted an unsatisfactory rating. This FA result was also removed by the AFBCMR on 4 Apr 13 (AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2012-03121). On 17 Apr 12, the contested commander-directed EPR, rendered for the period 29 Oct 11 through 17 Apr 12, was referred to the applicant for a “does not meet” standards rating in Block 2 (Standards, Conduct, Character, and Military Bearing) and for the following comment, “-Member was demoted due to third time failure of PT test.” The EPR was also referred for a “does not meet” standards rating in Block 3 (Fitness) and for the following comment, “Member failed to meet minimum physical fitness requirements.” On 4 Apr 13, the Board favorably considered the applicant’s request, AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2012-03121, to remove the FAs dated 7 Feb 11, 4 May 11, and 16 Feb 12. The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are described in the letters prepared by the Air Force offices of primary responsibility, which are attached at Exhibits C and D. AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSOE recommends denial of applicant's request to remove the demotion action and restore his grade to technical sergeant. Although the AFBCMR removed three FAs, he still had other failures within the 24-month period for which the commander could administer administrative demotion. His notification of demotion action stated the specific reason for demotion was the applicant's failure to fulfill his responsibilities as an NCO in accordance with AFI 36-2618, The Enlisted Force Structure. He had failed six of his last seven FAs within a 21- month period, with the last three failures being consecutive. The demotion action taken against the applicant was procedurally correct and there is no evidence there were any irregularities or that the case was mishandled in any way. The commander acted within his authority to demote the applicant for his failure to fulfill his NCO responsibilities and maintain fitness standards. In accordance with AFI 36-2905, Fitness Program, Chapter 9, paragraphs 9.1.2. and 9.1.5.2., unit commanders may take adverse administrative action upon a member's unsatisfactory fitness score on an official fitness assessment. Attachment 19 provides commanders guidance when selecting the appropriate administrative and personnel actions for members who fail to attain physical fitness standards. A complete copy of the AFPC/DPSOE evaluation is at Exhibit C. AFPC/DPSIDE recommends denial of the request to void the EPRs closing 28 Oct 11, 29 Jan 13 and 29 Apr 13, but recommends voiding the EPR closing 17 Apr 12. Although the applicant contends the four contested EPRs are unjust because they were based on three FAs which were removed by the AFBCMR, only the 16 Feb 12 FA, which was removed, effects the contested referral EPR, closing 17 Apr 12. Due to the fact the reason for the referral report no longer exists, it should be declared void and removed. Without justification or reason to void the other reports, it appears the applicant wishes to void them since they reflect his grade as staff sergeant, rather than technical sergeant. However, the applicant has not provided sufficient substantiating documentation or evidence to prove his assertions that the contested evaluations were rendered unfairly or unjustly, and has merely offered his view of events in the light that is most beneficial to him. Air Force policy is that an evaluation report is accurate, as written, when it becomes a matter of record. Additionally, it is considered to represent the rating chain's best judgment at the time it is rendered. To effectively challenge an evaluation, it is necessary to hear from all the members of the rating chain - not only for support, but also for clarification/explanation. The applicant has failed to provide any information from all the rating officials on the contested reports. The reports were accomplished in direct accordance with all applicable Air Force policies and procedures. Once a report is accepted for file, only strong evidence to the contrary warrants correction or removal from an individual's record. A complete copy of the AFPC/DPSIDE evaluation is at Exhibit D. ________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant indicates that the prior relief granted by the Board to remove the 7 Feb 11 and 4 May 11 FAs should weigh heavily in favor of his request for reinstatement of his former grade of technical sergeant, since these scores were the reason for his demotion. Since the diagnosis of his hyperthyroidism in Jul 09, he was been under a doctor’s care; however, he was unaware of the exemption nuances related to the AFI 26-2905, Fitness, and his medical condition took about six months to control with medication. Based on the attached AFFMS print-out he has attained satisfactory FA scores since 10 Nov 10, showing his commitment to fulfill his regulatory obligations within the Air Force as an NCO. The applicant’s complete response, with attachments, is at Exhibit F. ________________________________________________________________ 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 with respect to the applicant’s request to remove his administrative demotion to the grade of staff sergeant (E-5). After a thorough review of the evidence of record and the applicant’s complete submission, the majority of the Board is not convinced that he is the victim of an error or injustice in this regard. While the applicant argues that this Board’s previous action to remove his 7 Feb 11, 4 May 11, and 16 Feb 12 fitness assessment (FA) scores undermines the basis of the administrative demotion, the majority is not persuaded by the evidence presented that corrective action is warranted. In this respect, the majority notes that notwithstanding the Board’s previous action to remove three FA failures, the applicant’s record still contains four FA failures, which still form the legitimate basis of the administrative demotion. In this respect, the majority notes that AFI 36-2502, Airman Promotion/Demotion Programs, indicates that administrative demotion is an authorized response when a member has failed four FAs. Therefore, the majority is not convinced there is a basis to recommend removal of the administrative demotion. In view of this finding, the majority also finds no basis to recommend removal of EPRs closing 28 Oct 11, 29 Jan 13, and 29 Apr 13 as they accurately reflect the applicant’s grade as staff sergeant. Furthermore, having found no basis to recommend removal of the applicant’s demotion to staff sergeant or the noted EPRs, the majority finds no basis to recommend granting the applicant’s implied request for supplemental consideration for promotion to the grade of master sergeant (E-7). 4. Notwithstanding the above, sufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of an error or injustice with respect to the applicant’s EPR closing 17 Apr 12. While the majority notes the comments of AFPC/DPSID indicating that it would be appropriate to remove said EPR because the FA result that caused his rater to indicate a “does not meet” standards rating in Block 3 (Fitness) was removed, the majority remains unconvinced that the EPR must be removed. In this respect, the majority notes the EPR was also referred for a “does not meet” standards rating and comments in Block 2 (Standards, Conduct, Character, and Military Bearing) related to his administrative demotion. Therefore, in view of the fact we found no basis to undermine the demotion action, the majority finds the “does not meet” standards rating and comment related to the demotion accurate and, because the rating and comments related to the demotion action alone could have formed the legitimate basis for the EPR to be referred, the majority is not convinced the report should be removed based on the removal of the FA failure. Instead, the majority believes it would be proper and fitting to recommend the EPR be corrected to reflect a “meets” standards rating in Block 2 (Fitness) and removal of the objectionable comment. Therefore, the majority recommends the applicant’s records be corrected to the extent indicated below. THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating to the APPLICANT be corrected to show that the referral Enlisted Performance Report (EPR), rendered for the period 29 Oct 11 through 17 Apr 12, be corrected as follows: a. The rating in Block 2 (Fitness), be corrected to reflect “meets” standards, instead of “does not meet” standards. b. The comment in Block 2, (Fitness), “Member failed to meet minimum physical fitness requirements,” be removed. The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2013-02301 in Executive Session on 19 Aug 14, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: , Panel Chair , Member , Member By majority vote, the Board voted to correct the records as recommended. xxxxxx voted to grant additional relief and has provided a minority report at Exhibit G. The following documentary evidence was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 9 May 13, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPSOE, dated 30 Oct 13. Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/DPSIDE, dated 24 Mar 14. Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 30 Apr 14. Exhibit F. Letter, Applicant, dated 15 May 14, w/atchs. Exhibit G. Minority Report, dated 19 Sep 14. 1