RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2018-00454

	COUNSEL: NONE
	
	HEARING: YES

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

a.	Her Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) with a closeout date of 31 Jan 17 be removed from her records.

b.	She be allowed to test for promotion to the grade of technical sergeant (TSgt) during cycle 17E6, or TSgt be reinstated.

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

She was involuntarily separated from active duty for being passed-over for promotion to the grade of TSgt based on her last evaluation.  She experienced harassment in her work section, which affected her performance, ratings, and ability to study for promotion that resulted in a “NOT READY NOW” statement on her final EPR, and led to her earning one of the poorest scores that she can recall.    According to AFI 36-2706, Equal Opportunity Program Military and Civilian, she experienced harassment in the work section and leadership did not ensure an environment that was free of harassment and intimidation.

AFI 36-2706 1.1.1 states:  It is against Air Force policy for any airman, military or civilian, to unlawfully discriminate against, harass, intimidate or threaten another airman on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, national origin, age, disability, reprisal, or genetic information. Unlawful harassment includes unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors or other verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature particularly when submission to such conduct is made directly or indirectly as a term or condition of employment, and/or when submission to or rejection of such conduct is used as a basis for an employment decision affecting the person. Unlawful harassment also includes creating an intimidating, hostile working environment for another person on genetic information. The use of disparaging terms with respect to a person’s race, color, religion, sex, national origin, age, disability, or genetic information contributes to a hostile work environment and must not be tolerated. Commanders and supervisors should ensure all types of harassment are corrected as soon as possible once they are made aware.

The applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 29 Jun 00, the applicant entered active duty in the Regular Air Force.

On 3 Nov 17, the applicant filed a complaint alleging unprofessional behavior/harassment in the work place.  Findings of the inquiry: It was discovered that members of the section tend to joke around/play practical jokes, which could be considered harassment.  Conclusions, Recommendations and Corrective Actions:  Members addressed in the allegation were counseled on proper behavior and any deviation would result in more severe actions.  In addition, the entire section was briefed on professional behavior and conducting themselves in a proper manner.

On 1 Dec 17, the applicant was honorably discharged in the grade of staff sergeant after serving 17 years of active service.

For more information, see the excerpt of the applicant’s record at Exhibit B and the advisories at Exhibits D and E.

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DP3SP recommends denying the application.  Based on the documentation provided by the applicant and analysis of the facts, there is insufficient evidence of an error or injustice in reference to the contested evaluation.  The applicant has provided insufficient evidence to substantiate the EPR was unjust or inaccurate.

By way of background, the applicant filed an IG complaint on 3 Nov 17 describing the harassment she experienced in the work place, which was investigated and it was determined unprofessional behavior had occurred in the work place.  However, the applicant did not mention her belief that the harassment affected the outcome of her final EPR within the IG complaint.  Therefore, those claims were not investigated nor substantiated.  In accordance with the governing instructions, if the applicant felt she was discriminated against or received unfair treatment, it was her responsibility to prove that the evaluator on the contested EPR was biased to a point that a fair and accurate evaluation was impossible.  Although the unprofessional behavior was substantiated, the applicant has not provided sufficient evidence that her rating chain was unable to render a fair and accurate assessment of her performance.

In addition, the applicant contends the Promotion Recommendation of “Not Ready Now (NRN)” led to her earning one of the poorest scores she can recall.  However, as stated in the governing instructions, an EPR is not erroneous or unfair because the applicant believes it contributed to a non-selection for promotion.  It is contingent on the applicant to prove the EPR is erroneous or unjust based on its content. The Promotion Recommendation is independent from the performance assessment. A commander may render a Promotion Recommendation of NRN based on the belief that the applicant may need additional grooming in the current grade or require specific attention with regard to performance of established Air Force standards and expectations.

The complete advisory is at Exhibit D.

AFPC/ DP2SPP recommends denial of applicant’s requests to retest or be reinstated to active duty in the grade of TSgt, a rank to which she had not been selected.  The applicant provides no evidence of an error or injustice regarding her test results. 

The applicant tested PFE only for cycle 17E6 on 22 Mar 17 and received a score of 118.0.  When taking the PFE only, the test score is doubled.  The applicant scored 59.00.  Her total score was 292.00 and the score required for selection in her AFSC was 352.00.  The applicant had tested and been considered for promotion to the grade of TSgt during six previous cycles.  Her PFE scores ranged from 45.00 to 65.65.  Her scores during the previous three cycles (while assigned at Little Rock AFB) were 61.00, 45.00 and 57.00.  Her score of 59.00 for the contested cycle is consistent with past PFE scores.

As a matter of information, although the applicant’s IG complaint was substantiated, the complaint was not filed by the applicant until 3 Nov 17, one month prior to her separation on 1 Dec 17, and well after she tested for cycle 17E6; selections were announced on 20 Jul 17.

Had the applicant felt stressed and incapable of testing during cycle 17E6 due to the circumstances described in her application, she had the opportunity to voice her concerns to the Test Examiner (TE) at the time of testing.  The TE would have rescheduled her for a more appropriate time.  AFI 36-2605, para 1.19.2., states “… All examinees must inform the TE of any mental or physical condition that may prevent them from doing their best or finishing testing.”  AFPT 250, Instructions for Administering Air Force Promotion Tests, dated 1 Jan 04, also instructs TEs to read aloud several questions and directions to the examinees before testing begins.  The first question being, “Within the past 24 hours, has anyone experienced a condition that is verifiable and genuinely stressful and that you feel makes you incapable of testing at this time?” 

The complete advisory is at Exhibit E.

APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The Board sent copies of the Air Force evaluations to the applicant on 23 Aug 18 for comment (Exhibit F).  In response to the Air Force evaluations, she provides a copy of a memorandum 2 Jan 18, which indicates harassment and unprofessional behavior did occur in the workplace.  She realizes that it appears she did not complained until she was going to be separated from service; however, this is a misleading accusation because it is based solely on her most recent complaint.  She did not realize the cost of inaction until it became apparent she had been more affected than she preferred to admit.  These internal conflicts built up over time and culminated in her current situation.  Additionally, she did not recognize how heavily the stress and anxiety had affected her until the most recent testing cycle.  She loves the Air Force.  Her only regret is not reporting the harassment further up the chain of command or to the proper personnel in a timelier fashion.  

By way of background, her troubles began after being reassigned to Little Rock AFB under the Exceptional Family Member Program (EFMP); her husband had health problems.  She was sent back from a deployment, even though she had a Family Care Plan in place.  When she returned from the deployment, she found her son was struggling with depression and suicidal thoughts.  Leadership only gave her two weeks to get everything together and take care of her son and then got on her about missing work.  She had to deal with harassment in her work place.  Despite not receiving support from her chain of command, she completed all tasks and kept up with the Air Force standards for PT and readiness training.

Her work environment became toxic around 2014 and her performance began to suffer as she struggled to juggle her responsibilities and the harassment that formed around her.  She worked hard to work through the problems and make the most out of her situation.  She did not want to be “that airman” who was known for complaining.  In order to cope with the harassment in the workplace, she blamed herself instead of the problem.  She tried ignoring the problems in hopes of the problems would resolve themselves or simply considered that perhaps she was being too sensitive.  However, she realized the problem was getting worse and not better.  She could no longer justify the actions of her fellow airman or dismiss the inaction by leaders in her unit and made the difficult decision to report the harassment.  Her supervisors told her that she “need to toughen up” and did not address the issues.  This conflict caused extreme amounts of stress and anxiety.  She became increasingly distracted because she felt she had nowhere to turn. 

During the reporting period of 2016-2017, she never received feedback counseling according to the governing instructions.  So when she received her 2016-2017 EPR rating, she was in shock about the rating “Not Ready Now.”  She now humbly asks for an opportunity to continue serving her country for the next three years.  She believes that being transferred to another unit and given another opportunity to test that she will succeed as she has in the past. Taking into account the totality of her career, any objective observer would recognize that her service record was meticulous and spectacular until around 2014, which is when she began suffering from a toxic work environment.  

She went where the Air Force sent her without question or quarrel for the past 17 years and hopes to serve out the remaining three years until retirement with integrity, selfless service, and honor.  Her performance reports proves that has always been rated as an outstanding airman and NCO.  

The applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit G.

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

1.  The application was timely filed.

2.  The applicant exhausted all available avenues of non-judicial relief before applying to the Board.

3.   After thoroughly reviewing all Exhibits, it is the Board’s opinion that the applicant is not the victim of an error or injustice.  The Board concurs with the rationale and recommendations of AFPC/DP3SP and AFPC/DP2SPP and finds that a preponderance of the evidence does not substantiate the applicant’s contentions.  Therefore, the Board recommends against correcting the applicant’s records.

4.  The applicant’s case is adequately documented and it has not been shown that a personal appearance with or without counsel will materially add to the Board’s understanding of the issues involved.

THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT:

The applicant be informed the evidence did not demonstrate material error or injustice, and the application will only be reconsidered upon receipt of relevant evidence not already considered by the Board.

The application was adjudicated without a personal appearance.

CERTIFICATION:

The following quorum of the Board, as defined in Air Force Instruction (AFI) 36-2603, Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records (AFBCMR), paragraph 1.5, considered   in Executive Session on 3 Oct 18:

, Panel Chair 
, Panel Member
, Panel Member

All members voted not to correct the record.  The panel considered the following:

Exhibit A:	Application, DD Form 149, w/atchs, dated 21 Jan 18.
Exhibit B:	Documentary evidence, including relevant excerpts from official records.
Exhibit C:  GI Report, w/atchs, dated 2 Jan 18.
Exhibit D:	Advisory opinion, AFPC/DP3SP, dated 1 May 18.
Exhibit E: Advisory opinion, AFPC/DP2SPP, dated 18 Jun 18.
Exhibit F:	Notification of Advisory, SAF/MRBC to applicant, dated 23 Aug 18.
Exhibit G: Letter, Applicant’s Rebuttal, dated 20 Sep 18.

Taken together with all Exhibits, this document constitutes the true and complete Record of Proceedings required by AFI 36-2603, paragraph 4.11.9 for Docket Number BC-2018-00454.