RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-00358 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 1. His Enlisted Performance Reports (EPRs), rendered for the period 27 Mar 89 through 26 Mar 90 and 27 Mar 90 through 18 Sep 90, be declared void and removed from his military personnel records. 2. He be considered for supplemental promotion consideration to the grade of Senior Master Sergeant (SMSgt). APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: He was a victim of racial prejudice and the problem was addressed and identified in the Inspector General (IG) report. His squadron commander agreed with his case but stated it would jeopardize his career so his complaint never went anywhere. The rationale given for downgrading his EPR was due to a supposedly quota system his leadership had to follow. He was eventually made the Chief of Standardization and Evaluation, a position that is awarded to the best and most mature controller, not someone who does not demonstrate leadership, good judgment, professionalism and poor duty performance. However, according to his EPRS, he did not meet those standards. He remained in that position for four years even though it is normally a one year term. While performing his duties, he had to remove some controllers from their position because of violations and some of them happened to be black controllers. As a result, he was labeled by some of the black controllers as the “Over Seer,” a term that he felt was racial and derogatory. When the IG team conducted their investigation, they identified there was a racial problem in the facilities. Many other observations were made by the IG team that led to the removal of the Chief Controller from his position. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. STATEMENT OF FACTS: According to the applicant’s DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty, on 30 Sep 77, he enlisted in the Regular Air Force. On 1 Oct 97, he retired from active duty and was credited with 20 years and 1 day of total active service. On 21 Feb 14, SAF/IG conducted a search for an IG report but did not identify any records associated with the applicant’s name. The following is an abbreviated resume of his available Senior EPR ratings: RATING PERIOD PROMOTION RECOMMENDATION 24 Dec 95 5 24 Dec 94 5 1 Apr 94 5 1 Apr 93 5 1 Apr 92 5 18 Sep 91 5 *18 Sep 90 4 *26 Mar 90 4 * Contested Report The applicant provides no rationale as to why his failure to timely file should be waived in the interest of justice. AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSID recommends denial of the applicant’s request to remove the contested EPRs. Based on the untimely request, insufficient evidence provided, and the presumed legitimacy of the original crafting of the EPRs, the contested evaluations should not be voided from the applicant’s permanent record. The applicant has not provided compelling evidence to show that the reports are unjust or inaccurate as written. The applicant did not file an appeal through the Evaluation Report Appeals Board (ERAB) due to his retirement from active duty; however, the contested EPRS have been a matter of record for over 24 years. As a result, the applicant’s unreasonable delay regarding this matter has greatly complicated the Air Force’s ability to determine the factual merits of the applicant’s position. While the applicant contends the contested EPRS are unjust based on his claim of racial discrimination, he has not provided any substantial evidence indicating the evaluators of the contested reports wrote an unfair or impartial EPR but only presented his personal view of the events. Although he provided a Social Actions Staff Assistance Visit Report, known today as a Unit Climate Assessment or Equal Opportunity Climate Assessment Survey, in which he believed was an IG investigation, it was in fact not and does not prove he was discriminated against based on his race. Lastly, while the applicant contends the unit commander agreed with him in that he was discriminated against, he has not provided a statement or evidence to support his claim. Based on the evidence provided, or lack thereof, we believe the contested EPRs are accurate and in accordance with applicable Air Force policies and procedures. Air Force policy is that an evaluation report is accurate as written when it becomes a matter of record and is considered to represent the rating chain’s best judgment at the time it is rendered. The applicant has not substantiated that the contested reports were not rendered accurately and in good faith by all evaluators based on knowledge available at the time. The complete DPSID evaluation is at Exhibit C. AFPC/DPSOE has no equity in the decision and defers to DPSID’s recommendation. Furthermore, supplemental promotion consideration is granted on a case-by-case basis and not normally granted if the error or omission appeared on the Data Verification Record (DVR) or in the Unit Personnel Record Group (UPRG) and the member did not take the appropriate corrective or follow up action before the original board convened. The applicant never petitioned to have the EPRs removed prior to any promotion board convening for cycles 92S8 – 96E8. Based on the applicant’s Date of Rank (DOR) to Master Sergeant (MSgt), he was considered and nonselected for promotion to the grade of SMSgt seven times prior to retiring. The two contested reports were used in the promotion process for six of the seven cycles (92S8 – 96E8) and the ratings on both reports were “4s.” Should the Board grant the applicant’s request to remove the contested EPRs, DPSOE recommends the applicant be provided supplemental promotion consideration for cycles 92S8-96E8. The complete DPSOE evaluation is at Exhibit D. APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant reiterates that he was discriminated against because he was white as it relates to his performance reports. He states that the rationale given for his low evaluations was that it was a new evaluation system and there was a quota as to how many five ratings could be given versus four ratings. Prior to the new system being implemented, he received all nines, the highest rating available. He originally tried to have the EPRs removed in the early 90s but his commander chose not to support his complaint of racial bias involving a black superior and a white subordinate. His congressman suggested he file the DD Form 149. He was promoted to the grade of MSgt in less than 12 years and was moving up the ranks faster than most. However, when the new evaluation system came out, his supervisor gave him a four rating consecutively and then for the remainder of his career until he retired, he received a five rating. He continued to do everything possible to get promoted to include completing all Professional Military Education (PME), Air Force Associates Degree, Bachelor’s Degree, tower and radar certifications, and a teaching certificate in special education for Texas schools. His superiors made it clear that they did not like him and was going to make sure he never got promoted again. He was not the only one who suffered as many other controllers had the same experience. He goes on to reiterate that the Social Actions team uncovered some of the racial tensions amongst the controllers. Lastly, he reiterates that race was a contributing factor for his low EPRs that stalled his career. His complete response 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 not timely filed; however, it is in the interest of justice to excuse the failure to timely file. 3. Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of an error or injustice to warrant removing the contesting reports and granting supplemental promotion consideration to the grade of SMSgt. We took careful notice of the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of the case; however, we agree with the opinions and recommendations of the Air Force office of primary responsibility and adopt its rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice. We do not find his assertions, in and by themselves, sufficiently persuasive in this matter. We are not persuaded by the evidence provided that the contested reports are not a true and accurate assessment of his demonstrated potential during the specified time period or that the ratings he received were in error or contrary to the provisions of the governing instruction. Therefore, in the absence of persuasive 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-2014-00358 in Executive Session on 14 Jan 15, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: , Panel Chair , Member , Member The following documentary evidence was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 20 Jan 14, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Applicant's Available Master Personnel Records Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPSID, dated 15 Oct 14. Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/DPSOE, dated 3 Nov 14. Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 28 Nov 14. Exhibit F. Letter, Applicant, dated 7Dec 14, w/atch. 5