RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2020-00954

XXXXXXXX	COUNSEL: NONE
	
	HEARING REQUESTED: YES

APPLICANT’S REQUEST

His Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) for the period 1 Feb 15 through 31 Jan 16 be removed from his record, and subsequent supplemental promotion consideration.  He also requests Whistleblower protection due to an Inspector General (IG) complaint he filed.  

APPLICANT’S CONTENTIONS

There were numerous irregularities with his 2016 EPR that occurred during the processing of the contested EPR, which impacted his promotion and career progression for several years.  The formatting of the EPR is inaccurate, there was an additional rater change, and the Military Personnel Data System (MilPDS), Automated Records Management System (ARMS) and Personnel Records Display Application (PRDA) were updated before the EPR was completed.

Inaccuracies include:

- On 5 Apr 17, he filed an IG complaint to re-accomplish the ratee referral EPR, memorandum and additional rater mandatory comment.  After the complaint was filed the additional rater was changed to an official not in the supervisory chain as of closeout date of 31 Jan 16.  The additional rater should have been Master Sergeant (MSgt) RC.

- The EPR was not processed before he left for assignment on 27 Mar 16, which should have made the EPR a geographically separated evaluation, making the EPR inaccurate.  Furthermore, Airmen whose most recent EPR is a referral are not eligible for assignment.

-The evaluation is missing his rebuttal to the referral, which should be considered part of the evaluation.

-No certified mail tracking was accomplished on the reaccomplished EPR.  

-The quality of the scanned documents vary from the fist to the last pages, as they look like they were inserted.  Horizontal lines and coloring are inconsistent, signatures quality and clarity are inconsistent.  The servicing Military Personnel Flight (MPF) and Air Force Personnel Center (AFPC) did not comply with quality and legibility check.

-The EPR exceeded the suspense date for filing.  

-Mandatory comment is missing as to why the evaluator was relieved from duty and performance feedback was not accomplished and was not routed with the EPR.

-The signature date does not allow for certified or registered mail for original wet signature.  The rater was located at Schott AFB, Illinois, the new additional rated listed was located at Lajes Filed, Azores, Portugal.  The former additional rater MSgt RC retired on 18 Aug 17 at Warner Robins, Georgia.  The commander was located in Stuttgart, Germany, and the rate was located at Lackland AFB, Texas.

The applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicant is a staff sergeant (E-5) in the Regular Air Force.

On 23 May 17, the applicant submitted an IG complaint, FRNO 2017-06398.  The conclusion was that the applicant’s EPR was reassigned to Technical Sergeant (TSgt) DK on 1 Jun 17.  The EPR was returned by AFPC due to extra verbiage in the ratee signature block and the absence of the mandatory additional rater comment.  It was discovered that the ratee and rater signature dates did not match the digital signature block of the EPR.  Further investigation revealed the date the rater signed the EPR and referral memorandum date did not match.  Lajes Field’s MPS confirmed the ratee signed the EPR on 15 Jun 16.  The original copy of the applicant’s referral EPR was mailed to AFPC; however, all referral EPRs must be submitted through the Virtual Personnel Center (vPC).

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

APPLICABLE AUTHORITY

AFI 36-2406, Officer and Enlisted Evaluation Systems:

1.10. Referral Evaluations. 
1.10.1. Purpose.  Referral procedures are established to allow the ratee due process by giving the ratee an opportunity to respond and/or rebut any negative ratings or comments before it becomes a matter of record.  Additionally, it allows evaluators to consider all the facts, some they may not have been aware of, prior to the evaluation becoming a matter of record. 
1.10.2. General Information. 
1.10.2.1. Vague Comments.  Do not make non-specific and/or vague comments about the individual’s behavior or performance. 
1.10.2.2. Any evaluator whose ratings or comments causes an evaluation to become a referral evaluation, must give the ratee the opportunity to comment on the evaluation.
1.10.3. When to Refer a Performance Evaluation.  Performance evaluations must be referred when: 
1.10.3.1. Comments in any EPR, Letter of Evaluation (LOE) or Training Report (TR), regardless of the ratings if applicable, or the attachments to that evaluation, that are derogatory in nature, imply or refer to behavior incompatible with, or not meeting minimum acceptable standards of personal or professional conduct, character, judgment or integrity, and/or refer to disciplinary actions.  When considering the Airman’s ability to meet standards, consider unacceptable performance as actions that are incompatible with, and/or Airmen who have routinely (a repeated inability to meet standards that would render the aggregated performance assessment over the entire reporting period as below standards) and significantly (a single instance where failure to meet standards is either egregious in nature or so far short of a standard that it impacts overall aggregated performance assessment) failed to adhere to established AF standards and expectations.  This includes, but is not limited to, comments regarding omissions or misrepresentation of facts in official statements or documents, financial irresponsibility, mismanagement of personal or government affairs, confirmed incidents of discrimination or mistreatment, illegal use or possession of drugs, Absent Without Leave (AWOL), Article 15 action, and conviction by courts-martial.
1.10.3.3. An evaluator marks “Does Not Meet Standards” in Section III of the AF Form 910, Enlisted Performance Report (AB through TSgt). 
1.10.3.4. An evaluator marks “an overall “1” (Poor) or “2” (Needs Improvement) in Section V of the AF Form 910.

Correcting Officer and Enlisted Evaluations 
10.1. Purpose. 
10.1.1. The Evaluation Reports Appeal Board (ERAB) was established to provide all Air Force personnel with an avenue of relief for correcting errors or injustices in evaluations at the lowest possible level. 
10.1.2. If an evaluation cannot be corrected under Table 10.2., Correcting Minor Errors on Evaluations, an applicant’s first avenue of relief for correcting an evaluation is through the ERAB. 
10.1.3. An applicant’s second and last avenue of relief is via the Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records (AFBCMR).

10.2.4. Prohibited Requests. The Board will not consider nor approve requests to: 
10.2.4.1. Void an evaluation when the error or injustice can be corrected administratively.

AIR FORCE EVALUATION

AFPC/DP2SPP recommends denying the applicant’s request for supplemental promotion consideration.  There is no evidence of an error or injustice with the 2016 evaluation, which rendered the applicant ineligible for promotion.  On 23 Aug 18, the applicant requested supplemental promotion consideration for promotion cycle 16E6, via Case Management System (CMS) case number 10898065.  The request was denied, as the applicant’s 2016 EPR was a referral report.  The applicant’s referral EPR mandated a promotion eligibility status code R (Ineligible – Referral EPR) be placed in his record, which rendered him ineligible for promotion.

The complete advisory opinion is at Exhibit C.

AFPC/DP3SP recommends denying the applicant’s request to remove his 2016 EPR from his records.  The applicant filed two Evaluation Review Appeal Board (ERAB) applications.  In the first, he requested the AF Form 77, Letter of Evaluation, with the same inclusive dates as the contested EPR be removed, as well as the contested EPR.  The Board approved the request to void the AF Form 77 due to the EPR with the same dates already existing in the record.  In the second application, he requested removal of the contested EPR again.  The Board was not convinced of an error or injustice based on the documentation provided, and denied the request to void the EPR. 

The applicant received a referral EPR with the following comments: “Failed to correct work ctr trng prgm as dir’d; multiple errors id’d > 3 mos later—caused incr’d work load w/80 mnpwr cut” and “Authorized circuit re-key w/out coordination; blatantly misled ldrshp—displayed lack of integrity/disrupted ABG ops.”  The applicant contends after he filed an IG complaint, the findings were to re-accomplish the referral memorandum and EPR to include the mandatory comment in accordance with AFI 36-2406 and remove the extra verbiage in the remarks section.  He further contends AFI 36-2406 para 1.7.1.1.4. was violated as the additional rater was changed to someone outside of the rating chain, Senior Master Sergeant (SMSgt) S, when it should have been MSgt RC.  Para 1.7.1.1.4. states, “It is prohibited to make rating chain deviations (such as skipping an evaluator) solely for reasons of convenience.”  However, the comment from MSgt RC within vPC during the routing of the EPR stated that he could not review the EPR and it needed to be routed to SMSgt P.  Based on the routing, it appears SMSgt P conducted the initial review of the EPR as MSgt RC was due to retire; however, due to the EPR having to be reaccomplished overtime (finalized in 2018), it appears SMSgt S took over for SMSgt P.  Therefore, the applicant has provided insufficient evidence to prove SMSgt S signed as the additional rater solely out of convenience.  Furthermore, there are no minimum days of supervision required for additional raters, and the additional rater is as of the signature date versus the closeout date as additional rater’s due move (PCS, PCA or retire/separate).

The applicant also contends the referral EPR was updated in MilPDS prior to it being finalized and uploaded into PRDA.  The applicant provided a screenshot of MilPDS reflecting that the EPR was inadvertently updated on 6 Jul 16.  He states this affected his promotion/career progression; however, there is no documentation to substantiate whether the applicant’s promotion was directly impacted by the MilPDS update itself.  Furthermore, the applicant received a referral EPR for the contested time period which rendered him ineligibile for promotion consideration. 

Errors were noted throughout the routing of the initial draft EPR causing the EPR and referral memorandum to be re-accomplished to ensure adherence/compliance with AFI 36-2406.  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 EPR as processing inefficiencies is not a sole valid basis to void a report.  Moreover, the applicant has not proven the behavior resulting in the referral EPR did not occur.  As such, recommend denial of the applicant’s request.

The complete advisory opinion is at Exhibit D.

APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION

The Board sent a copy of the advisory opinion to the applicant on 6 Oct 20 for comment (Exhibit E), but has received no response.

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 concurs with the rationale and recommendations of AFPC/DP2SPP and AFPC/DP3SP and finds a preponderance of the evidence does not substantiate the applicant’s contentions.  The applicant has provided insufficient evidence to substantiate an error or injustice in regards to the contested EPR as processing inefficiencies is not a sole valid basis to void a report.  Moreover, the applicant has not proven the behavior resulting in the referral EPR did not occur.  Therefore, the Board recommends against correcting the applicant’s records.

4.  The applicant has not shown a personal appearance, with or without counsel, would materially add to the Board’s understanding of the issues involved.

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-2020-00954 in Executive Session on 18 Nov 20:

, Panel Chair
, Panel Member
, Panel Member

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

Exhibit A:	Application, DD Form 149, w/atchs, dated 4 Mar 20.
Exhibit B:	Documentary evidence, including relevant excerpts from official records.
Exhibit C:	Advisory opinion, AFPC/DP2SPP, dated 9 Apr 20.
Exhibit D:	Advisory opinion, AFPC/DP3SP, dated 26 Jul 20.
Exhibit E:	Notification of advisory, SAF/MRBC to applicant, dated 6 Oct 20.

Taken together with all Exhibits, this document constitutes the true and complete Record of Proceedings pertaining to Docket Number BC-2020-00954, as required by AFI 36-2603, paragraph 4.11.9.