RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-03691 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His referral Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) with an overall rating of “2” for the period of 24 May 2012 thru 13 Dec 2012 be removed from his records. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: The EPR is full of unsubstantiated claims. His supervisor wrote the EPR and gave it to him on his last day of work. He was only in the career field for two and a half months and was in training when he received the EPR. He received a positive performance feedback and received no verbal or written warnings about the change in his performance. Despite his best efforts, he was not given an opportunity to address the EPR with his supervisor. On 25 Jan 2013, he was presented with AF IMT 623a, On the Job Training Record Continuation Sheet, and was instructed to sign it. The plan was premised on the inaccurate EPR and based on the unsubstantiated allegation that his skills and knowledge were lacking. On 29 Jan 2013, the additional rater contacted him to discuss his rebuttal of the referral EPR. She advised him that she would not change the rating and asked him to sign the EPR and the training plan. On 30 Jan 2013, he contacted the Inspector General (IG) and was advised not to fight it. He has diligently tried to resolve the matter directly with his chain of command to no avail. In support of his request, the applicant provides a personal statement, copies of the referral EPR, rebuttal statement, e-mail communique, AF Form 623A, and other various documents associated with his request. The applicant's complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. ________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant is a member of the Nevada Air National Guard (NVANG). He received a referral EPR with an overall rating of “2” for the period ending 13 Dec 2012. _______________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: NGB/A1PP recommends approval. The EPR was not completed In Accordance With (IAW) established procedures outlined in AFI 36- 2406, Officer and Enlisted Evaluation Systems. AFI 36-2406, Chapter 2 states the rater will provide the original completed and signed Performance Feedback Worksheet (PFW) to the ratee. The PFW the applicant received from his supervisor was not signed nor was it dated. Additionally, it did not contain any information that the applicant was not meeting standards. The copy of the EPR provided by the applicant shows that both the rater and additional rater electronically signed the EPR one day after close out. IAW AFI 36-2406, referral reports are printed and contain handwritten signatures. The official record in the Automated Records Management System (ARMS) contain handwritten signatures but the ratee acknowledgement section indicates the applicant declined to respond which further persuades one to question whether the applicant was given a fair evaluation and perhaps his unit would not weigh fairly on any comments provided by the applicant. Additionally, the applicant was a recent technical training school graduate who was learning his job. He was a 3-level in a new career field; therefore, it would be unfair to compare his performance against another contracting technician in the grade of staff sergeant who was not newly assigned. The complete A1PP evaluation is at Exhibit C. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: On 29 Oct 2013, a copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant for review and comment within 30 days. As of this date, no response has been received by this office (Exhibit D). ________________________________________________________________ ? 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 corrective action. In this respect, after a thorough review of the evidence presented we believe the applicant has established reasonable doubt as to whether or not the EPR in question is a true and accurate portrayal of his performance and demonstrated potential during the period in question. Therefore, we agree with the recommendation of the Air Force office of primary responsibility and adopt the rationale expressed as the basis for our conclusion the applicant has been the victim of an injustice. As such, we recommend the contested EPR be removed from his records. Accordingly, we recommend the records be corrected as indicated below. 4. The applicant’s case is adequately documented and it has not been shown that a personal appearance with or without counsel will materially add to our understanding of the issue involved. Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorably considered. ________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: The pertinent military records relating to APPLICANT, be corrected to show that his AF Form 910, Enlisted Performance Report (AB thru TSgt), rendered for the period of 24 May 2012 to 13 Dec 2012, be declared void and removed from his records. ________________________________________________________________ The following members of the Board considered Docket Number BC- 2013-03691 in Executive Session on 5 Jun 2014, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: , Chair , Member , Member All members voted to correct the records as recommended. The following pertinent documentation in Docket Number BC-2013- 03691 was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 2 Aug 2013, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Applicant’s Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Letter, NGB/A1PP, dated 17 Sep 2013. Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 29 Oct 2013. Chair