ADDENDUM TO RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2020-00954-2

XXXXXXXXXXXXXX	COUNSEL: NONE	 

  	HEARING REQUESTED: YES  

APPLICANT’S REQUEST

His request for removal of his referral enlisted performance report (EPR) for the reporting period ending 31 Jan 16 be reconsidered.  

RESUME OF THE CASE

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

The applicant received a referral (Met some but not all expectations) EPR for the reporting period ending 31 Jan 16 for failure to correct the work center training program as directed, resulting in multiple errors three months later.  He also authorized a circuit re-key without coordination and misled leadership, displaying lack of integrity.  

On 5 Apr 17, the applicant filed an inspector general (IG) complaint alleging his EPR was not completed in compliance with procedures outlined in AFI 36-2406, Officer and Enlisted Evaluations Systems.  The IG determined the complaint to be a command issue and referred the complaint to the applicant’s command. 

The applicant provides AF Form 77, Letter of Evaluation, Certified True Copy, by his force support squadron (FSS) dated 3 Aug 17 stating the EPR for the rating period 1 Feb 15 to 31 Jan 16 was not available due to administrative reasons and the personnel data system (PDS) reflected the overall rating to be “Met some but not all expectations.”    

On 6 Jul 18, the applicant was notified via MyPers, his 2016 EPR was updated in his records on 22 Jun 18 and the 2016 letter of evaluation (LOE) was uploaded on 26 Sep 17.  

On 23 Aug 18, the applicant requested the evaluations report appeals board (ERAB) remove the LOE and the referral EPR and he be provided supplemental promotion consideration.    The ERAB partially approved the applicant’s request and removed the LOE.  

On 18 Nov 20, the Board considered and denied his request for removal of his referral EPR and he receive supplemental promotion consideration to the grade of technical sergeant (E-6).  The Board agreed with the rationale and the recommendations of AFPC/DP2SPP and AFPC/DP3SP, the processing inefficiencies were not a valid basis to void the report nor did he prove his behavior resulting in the referral EPR did not occur.   

For an accounting of the applicant’s original request and the rationale of the earlier decision, see the AFBCMR Letter and Record of Proceedings at Exhibit F. 

The applicant provided a response to the Air Force advisory opinions on 30 Oct 21; however, his response was not considered by the Board.  Therefore, the applicant’s case requires reconsideration by the Board.  He contends the EPR surpassed the suspense dates and did not comply with AFI 36-2406, Officer and Enlisted Evaluations.  The EPR was also not signed before the rater and ratee’s permanent change of station (PCS) and was not justly reaccomplished.  He provides a memorandum for record (MFR) from his rater dated 9 Mar 16 stating he did not have electronic documentation concerning the EPR due to a missing computer and the letter of counseling (LOC) was missing from his desk.  His rater stated he was instructed to give the applicant a LOC because he knowingly communicated incorrect information creating conflict.  He authorized a re-keying of cryptographic equipment, without authority, which resulted in an interruption of the base commander’s video teleconference (VTC).  

The applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit G.

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 remains unconvinced the evidence presented demonstrates an error or injustice.  In this respect, the Board concurs with the conclusion of the ERAB and the Board’s earlier decision, the administrative errors in the processing of his referral EPR did not void the report nor did it prove his behavior resulting in the referral EPR did not occur.    Since the Board does not recommend removal of the referral EPR, the Board does not recommend the applicant be considered for supplemental promotion to the grade of technical sergeant.  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-2020-00954-2 in Executive Session on 6 Apr 22:

 , Chair, AFBCMR
 , Panel Member
 , Panel Member

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

Exhibit F:	Record of Proceedings, w/ Exhibits A-E, dated 27 Nov 20.
Exhibit G:	Application, DD Form 149, w/atchs, dated 16 Aug 21.
Exhibit H:	Documentary evidence, including relevant excerpts from official records.

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.