RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2010-01586 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO __________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) rendered for the period 2 Jan 09 through 1 Jan 10, Section III, Block 2, Performance Assessment, Standards, Conduct, Character & Military Bearing, be changed to match the wording on his Letter of Reprimand (LOR), dated 19 Jun 09 or be declared void. __________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: The statement contained in the contested report does not match the wording in the LOR. He was not given any documentation supporting the statement in the contested report. His conduct has not been perfect and he understands he does not deserve a firewall “5” EPR; however, it is an injustice to receive a referral EPR considering all the facts and circumstances. In support of his request, the applicant provides copies of personal statements, the stated LOR, Unfavorable Information File Action, and the contested EPR. The applicant's complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. __________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant is presently serving in the Regular Air Force in the grade of senior airman. A resume of the applicant’s EPRs follows: CLOSEOUT DATE OVERALL RATING 1 Jan 08 5 1 Jan 09 4 *1 Jan 10 3 *Contested report. __________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: HQ AFPC/DPSID recommends partial relief by changing Section III, Block 2 of the contested EPR from, “Letter of Reprimand/Control Roster action for falsifying official records as Squadron Physical Training Leader” to read “Letter of Reprimand/Control Roster action for dereliction of duties as a Squadron Physical Training Leader” rather than voiding the contested report. It is recommended the contested EPR be corrected to reflect the intent from which the LOR was given versus voiding the entire report. DPSID states the applicant did file an appeal through the Evaluation Reports Appeals Board (ERAB), which was denied. Additionally, the ERAB reviewed this application and recommends denial. The complete HQ AFPC/DPSID evaluation is at Exhibit C. __________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 29 Oct 10 for review and comment within 30 days (Exhibit D). As of this date, this office has not received a response. __________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT: 1. The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by existing law or regulations. 2. The application was timely filed. 3. Sufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of error or injustice warranting partial relief. It appears the applicant is only requesting that a statement be changed in the referral EPR he received, or in the alternative, the EPR be voided. However, we note that based on the statement attached to his application that if the EPR is not voided, he also requests the EPR not be referred and that the markings reflected in Section III and V be reconsidered. The Air Force office of primary responsibility (OPR) has determined the contested statement does not accurately reflect the reason the applicant was reprimanded. As such, they recommend the EPR be amended to properly match the wording in the Letter of Reprimand (LOR). We agree with their recommendation. However, we are not persuaded by the applicant’s arguments the EPR should not be referred or the markings be changed. As noted by the OPR, the applicant is not contesting he should not have received the LOR, rather, that the decisions to make the report a referral report and the markings he received are not consistent with his overall performance during the rating period. Further, the applicant has not provided any support from his rating chain in support of his appeal. He also has not provided sufficient evidence to show that, with the exception of the erroneous statement, the EPR as written is not an accurate reflection of his performance during the period. Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no basis to recommend granting any relief beyond that recommended below. __________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating to APPLICANT, be corrected to show that the Enlisted Performance Report (AB through TSgt), AF Form 910, rendered for the period 2 January 2009 through 1 January 2010, be amended in Section III, Performance Assessment, Block 2, to read “Letter of Reprimand/Control Roster action for dereliction of duties as Sq Physical Tng Leader” rather than “Letter of Reprimand/Control Roster action for falsifying official records as Sq Physical Tng Leader.” __________________________________________________________________ The following members of the Board considered Docket Number BC- 2010-01586 in Executive Session on 3 February 2011, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: , Panel Chair , Member , Member All members voted to correct the records, as recommended. The following documentary evidence was considered for Docket Number BC-2010-01586: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 21 Apr 10, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Letter, HQ AFPC/DPSID, dated 28 Sep 10. Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 29 Oct 10. XXXX Panel Chair