RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2019-04587

XXXXXXXXXX	COUNSEL: NONE

	HEARING REQUESTED: NO

APPLICANT’S REQUEST

His Enlisted Performance Reports (EPRs) rendered for the periods of 4 August 2015 through 31 March 2016, 1 April 2016 through 31 March 2017, and 1 April 2017 through 31 March 2018, be removed from his records.

APPLICANT’S CONTENTIONS

He feels his records were unjustly judged, stemming from a personal bias towards his character and his work ethic, all while being ostracized from opportunities to be treated with respect and dignity.  The “Not Ready Now” promotion recommendations he received from 2015 through 2018 were based on unfair personal bias and unwarranted accusations.  He was not rated based on his work ethic or job performance.  He was a security forces member and suffered a leg injury, which prevented him from arming for an extended amount of time.  He is significantly behind the power curve towards promoting.  He has not progressed in rank because of how he has been perceived.  It is no coincidence that his last EPRs were the same rating; it was purposely done to stop his career progression.  Further, he provides character references from members of his squadron that support his contentions and believes he was unfairly rated.

The applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicant is a currently serving Air Force senior airman (E-4). 

For more information, see the excerpt of the applicant’s record at Exhibit B and the advisory at Exhibit C.

AIR FORCE EVALUATION

AFPC/DP3SP recommends denying the application.  Based on the analysis of the facts and documentation provided the applicant has provided insufficient evidence to substantiate an error or injustice in regards to the contested EPRs.  The applicant filed two Evaluation Review Appeal Board (ERAB) applications for the contested EPRs. The first appeal was denied as the board was not convinced of an error or injustice based on the documentation provided within the case.  The second appeal was also denied, as the evidence provided did not indicate any bias or inappropriate action by the commander.  Although the applicant provided character statements in support of his claims, insufficient evidence was provided from credible officials (i.e. the Inspector General) substantiating that the commander rated the applicant unfairly based on personal bias.  Promotion recommendations are at the discretion of the Forced Distributor (Commander) when assessing the member’s potential to serve in the next higher grade.  IAW AFI 36-2406, a Not Ready Now promotion recommendation are given to those who are not considered ready for promotion at the time based on the need for additional grooming in the current grade, or where airmen may require specific attention with regard to performance of established AF standards and expectations.  Not Ready Now evaluations do not constitute a referral.  In addition, although there are character references and the additional rater support, two different commander’s determined the applicant was not ready for promotion to the next higher grade.  Finally, the applicant’s performance rating has been “met expectation” and therefore it is conceivable that the applicant may not have been ready to promote to the next grade.
  
The complete advisory opinion is at Exhibit C.

APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION

The Board sent a copy of the advisory opinion to the applicant on 9 September 2020 for comment (Exhibit D), and the applicant responded on 2 October 2020, contending he filed an IG complaint 5 October 2017.  On 29 November 2017, he received an email stating that the case was being closed because the commander explained in detail to the group commander why he (the applicant) was not ready – he only did details not post work.  He was working Security Forces details, which are jobs that do not require him to carry a weapon.  This is the only thing he was qualified to do because he was not medically cleared to do post work (i.e. gate guard).  Therefore, why is he being penalized for physically not being able to do post work when that was out of his control?  In order to do post work - you have to be able to arm up.

The applicant’s response is at Exhibit E.

FINDINGS AND CONCLUSION

1.  The application was timely filed.

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

3.   After reviewing all Exhibits, the Board concludes the applicant is not the victim of an error or injustice.  The Board is not persuaded the contested reports are an inaccurate depiction of the applicant’s performance and demonstrated potential for the period in question.  Other than his own assertions, the Board has seen no evidence by the applicant which would lead the Board to believe the rater abused his discretionary authority or that he rated the applicant unfairly based on personal bias.  Therefore, the Board concurs with the rationale and recommendation of AFPC/DP3SP and finds a preponderance of the evidence does not substantiate the applicant’s contentions.  The Board recommends against correcting the applicant’s records.

RECOMMENDATION

The Board recommends informing the applicant the evidence did not demonstrate material error or injustice, and the Board will reconsider the application only upon receipt of relevant evidence not already presented.

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 Docket Number BC-2019-04587 in Executive Session on 27 October 2020:

, Panel Chair
, Panel Member
, Panel Member

All members voted against correcting the record.  The panel considered the following:

Exhibit A:	Application, DD Forms 149, w/atchs, dated 4 September 2019.
Exhibit B:	Documentary evidence, including relevant excerpts from official records.
Exhibit C:	Advisory opinion, AFPC/DP3SP, dated 26 July 2020.
Exhibit D:	Notification of advisory, SAF/MRBC to applicant, dated 9 September 2020.
Exhibit E:  Applicant’s Response, w/atchs, dated 2 October 2020.

Taken together with all Exhibits, this document constitutes the true and complete Record of Proceedings, as required by AFI 36-2603, paragraph 4.11.9.