RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-02192 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His Enlisted Performance Report (EPR), rendered for the period of 16 April 2009 through 15 April 2010, be removed from his record. APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: The EPR has a negative rating based on an inaccurate finding/claim. The EPR does not meet AFI 36-2406 time requirements for feedback, review, comments and submission. 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 staff sergeant. The applicant did file an appeal through the Evaluation Report Appeals Board (ERAB) under the provisions of AFI 36-2406, Officer and Enlisted Evaluation Systems, 15 April 2005 and AFI 36-2401, Correcting Officer and Enlisted Evaluation Reports, 10 March 2006; however, the ERAB denied the applicant’s request to void the report, but approved the minor correction to the number of days supervision. The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the letter prepared by the Air Force office of primary responsibility (OPR), which is attached at Exhibit B. AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSID recommends denial. DPSID states the applicant was arrested for DUI refusal and lost his base driving privileges for a year, which was also commented upon on the evaluation. The applicant provided documentation showing the charges were dropped for DUI refusal; however, after careful review of the court document provided, it appears the plea occurred on 15 October 2009. The applicant plead guilty to reckless driving, no contest to improper passing, and plead not guilty for DUI refusal. Below the plea, the sentence of the court was as follows: total fine in the amount of $1,249 .00, 40 hours of community service, probation of 12 months, and was found guilty of a DUI. Only the evaluators know how much an incident influenced the report. IAW AFI 36-2406, paragraph 1.3.1 which states - Evaluators are strongly encouraged to comment in performance reports on misconduct that reflects a disregard of the law, whether civil law or the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), or when adverse actions such as Article 15, Letters of Reprimand, Admonishment, or Counseling, or placement on the Control Roster have been taken. Therefore, they contend that the inclusion of the referral comment on the EPR was appropriate and within the evaluators authority to document given the incident in question. They contend that the comment referencing the behavior and the punishment received on the contested referral EPR to be fair, accurate and IAW AFI 36- 2406 instructional guidance. The applicant also claims lack of a feedback due to the rater being deployed at that time annotated on the evaluation. The contested feedback date is 8 January 2010; however, the rater didn’t depart TDY until 10 January 2010. The applicant further contends that his EPR does not meet AFI 36-2406 time requirements for feedback. If the applicant was concerned about his lack of feedback, there were avenues to take to resolve the issue in advance. Paragraph 2.6.3 states “Since the ratee shares the responsibility to ensure feedback sessions occur, a feedback notice is also sent to the ratee, through his or her unit, 30 days after sending the notice to the rater (for officers) or concurrently with the notice sent to the rater (for enlisted).” In addition, paragraph 2.10 states: “while documented feedback sessions are required by this Instruction, they do not replace informal day-to-day feedback. A rater’s failure to conduct a required or requested feedback session, or document the session on a PFW, will not, of itself, invalidate any subsequent performance report or (for officers) PRF.” Furthermore, IAW AFI 36-2401, paragraph Al.5.8, it states that “Only members in the rating chain can confirm if counseling was provided. While current Air Force policy requires performance feedback for personnel, a direct correlation between information provided during feedback sessions and the assessments on evaluation reports does not necessarily exist. For example, if after a positive feedback session, an evaluator discovers serious problems, he or she must record the problems in the evaluation report even when it disagrees with the previous feedback. There may be occasions when feedback was not provided during a reporting period. Lack of counseling or feedback, by itself, is not sufficient to challenge the accuracy or justness of a report. Evaluators must confirm they did not provide counseling or feedback, and that this directly resulted in an unfair evaluation. You must also supply specific information about the unfair evaluation so the Board can make a reasoned judgment on the appeal. Finally, every airman knows the existing standards for indebtedness, weight, fitness, etc. Lack of counseling in these areas provides no valid basis for voiding a report.” In this case, the applicant has not provided any relevant documents to prove this allegation. They contend that this specific contention by the applicant is not in accordance with established Air Force policy and is thereof also without merit. The applicant has provided insufficient documentation to prove his assertions that the contested evaluation was rendered unfairly or unjustly. 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 provided insufficient information from the rating officials on the contested report. It appears the report was 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 should warrant correction or removal from an individual’s record and the burden of proof should be on the applicant. Unfortunately, the applicant has not substantiated that the contested report was not rendered accurately and in good faith by all evaluators based on knowledge available at the time. A complete copy of the AFPC/DPSID evaluation is at Exhibit B. APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 16 July 2015 for review and comment within 30 days (Exhibit C). 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 (OPR) and adopt its rationale as the basis for our conclusion the applicant has not been the victim of an error of injustice. In spite of the applicant’s detailed and informative application, we do not find the documentation presented sufficient to conclude the contested report is an inaccurate assessment of his performance or that it was inappropriately rendered. Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no basis to recommend granting the requested relief. 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-2014-02192 in Executive Session on 17 August 2015 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: The following documentary evidence was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 28 May 2014, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPSID, dated 1 July 2015. Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 16 July 2015.