RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2021-03766

XXXXXXXXXXXXXX	COUNSEL: NONE
	 
  	HEARING REQUESTED: NO	 

APPLICANT’S REQUEST

The AFBCMR conduct an independent review of her inspector general (IG) complaint and unfair treatment resulting in her receiving a “Not Ready Now” enlisted performance report (EPR) for the reporting period ending 31 Mar 21.

APPLICANT’S CONTENTIONS

The discrimination she received has negatively impacted her future in the Air Force.  The final IG report states her flight chief did not accomplish feedback for inappropriate fingernails, eyelashes and personal hygiene.  

She was briefed about her nail color, although her nails were not visible as she was wearing authorized black gloves.  There was no factual reason for making her remove her gloves.  The second incident pertained to her eyelashes.  Her supervisor contended she was in violation of AFI 36-2903, Dress and Appearance of Air Force Personnel; however, there was no regulation on eyelashes or the wear of eyelash extensions.  She has not worn eyelash extensions since 2019 but was verbally counseled by the flight chief in Nov-Dec 20.  She was also told base senior leaders questioned the eyelash standards following an engagement passing through the main gate; however, she never worked at the main gate or any other gate on base.  

Her flight chief also questioned her hygiene when she had to go home to change her uniform due to her menstrual cycle.  

Her three years of good service was not acknowledged during the two months she faced discriminatory treatment based on perceptions and hearsay.  

The applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicant is a senior airman (E-4) in the Air Force.

The applicant received an EPR with Promotion Recommendation “Not Ready Now” for the reporting period ending 31 Mar 21.  

The applicant received an EPR with Promotion Recommendation “Not Ready Now” for the reporting period ending 31 Mar 22.  

SAF/IG provides the applicant’s IG case, Automated Case Tracking System (ACTS) File Reference Number (FRNO) 2021-10322:

a.  The AF Form 102, Inspector General Complaint Form, dated 29 Jun 21, reflects the applicant filed an IG complaint.  The applicant alleged her flight chief issued her a “Not Ready Now” promotion recommendation on her EPR based on her fingernails, eyelashes and personal hygiene.  The applicant also alleged she was denied opportunities given to her peers and she was talked about and made fun of by staff sergeants (E-5) who she was supposed to look up to and trust.  The EPR rating was unfair and she deserved the same opportunities as everyone else.  She was discriminated against.  

b. The Referral Completion Report dated 18 Oct 21, states an inquiry was conducted by the mission support group senior enlisted leader (MSG/CCC).  The findings show the flight chief failed to accomplish formal feedback sessions to establish expectations regarding duty performance; however, verbal counseling was accomplished on multiple occasions to correct and/or identify expectations and standards for finger nail color and length, eyelashes and personal hygiene.  It was identified the previous MSG commander (MSG/CC) questioned the squadron’s leadership on the corrective standards following engaging with the applicant while passing through the main gate.  In reference to the “Not Ready Now” marking on the 31 Mar 21 EPR, the decision was reached based on recommendations from the squadron’s senior enlisted leaders to the commander.  The squadron leadership identified a rack/stack system based on noted duty performance when considering airmen for increased responsibilities.  The unit denied any incidents associated with unfair treatment within the work center and the applicant did not have any derogatory documents within their personnel information file (PIF).  The MSG/CC directed the squadron commander and senior enlisted leader to ensure feedback sessions were accomplished with all airmen.  

c. In a letter dated 27 Oct 21, the MSG/CC informed the applicant her complaint was referred to him in accordance with AFI 90-301, Inspector General Complaints, Resolution, as her complaint was a command issue.  The applicant was informed the MSG/CCC conducted an inquiry and the findings, conclusion and recommendation.  The applicant was advised if she was not satisfied with the final determination, she could request the MSG/CC further review the case within 90 days of receiving the response. The applicant was also advised of the right to petition the AFBCMR for correction of the adverse personnel actions regardless of the findings in the case.  

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

APPLICABLE AUTHORITY/GUIDANCE

AFI 36-2603, Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records (AFBCMR), paragraph 2.3, The Board is not an investigative body; therefore, the applicant bears the burden of providing evidence of an error or injustice.  However, the Board may, in its discretion, hold a hearing or call for additional evidence or opinions in any case.  

AFI 90-301, Inspector General Complaints and Resolution, Table 3.11, Rule 2.  The complaint is a command issue, then refer the complaint and the referral completion report template to the appropriate commander.

AFI 90-301, paragraph 2.3.1, the IG Complaints Resolution Program should not be used for matters normally addressed through other established grievance or appeal channels, unless there is evidence those channels mishandled the matter or process.

AFI 36-2406, Officer and Enlisted Evaluations Systems, paragraph 10.1, The Evaluation Reports Appeal Board (ERAB) was established to provide airmen with an avenue of relief for correcting errors or injustices in evaluations at the lowest level.  The applicant did not indicate if she filed an appeal with the ERAB.  However, her correction is for a review of her IG complaint on the basis of lack of feedback and discrimination rather than correction of the EPR.  

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 conducted an independent review of the applicant’s case and finds a preponderance of the evidence does not substantiate the applicant’s contentions.  The applicant contends her promotion recommendation on her 31 Mar 21 EPR was unjust and that she was discriminated against, treated unfairly, denied opportunities given to her peers and was not provided feedback on dress and appearance standards.  The Board notes per AFI 36-2603, the applicant bears the burden of providing evidence of an error or injustice; however, other than her   own uncorroborated assertions, she has provided insufficient evidence to support any of the allegations.  Moreover, the evidence shows the applicant’s complaint was properly investigated and the inquiry was conducted in accordance with AFI 90-301.  Therefore, 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-2021-03766 in Executive Session on 30 Aug 22:

 , Chair, AFBCMR 
 , 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 15 Dec 21.
Exhibit B:	Documentary evidence, including relevant excerpts from official records.
Exhibit C:	SAF/IG Case, ACTS FRNO 2021-10322, dated 27 Oct 21 (WITHDRAWN)

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.