RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-05449 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 1. Her Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) for the period ending 21 Mar 12 be removed from her record. 2. Her EPR for the period ending 2 Feb 13 be removed from her record. APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: The EPR for the period ending 21 Mar 12 includes a negative comment stating she received a Letter of Reprimand (LOR); however this LOR is not in her Personal Information File (PIF) nor is there any evidence of it in her records. She asked her commander, first sergeant and flight superintendent about the LOR and they do not know where this LOR is or whether it was ever a part of her record. The rater and unit commander have since retired. On 3 Oct 13, she spoke to her group commander who told her that it was determined that the LOR should not have been given to her and therefore it is not in her record. The EPR for the period ending 2 Feb 13 includes a false claim that she did not secure the vault in her work center. She obtained a Memorandum For Record (MFR) from security forces stating that the vault was secured during her shift. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. STATEMENT OF FACTS: On 20 Aug 97, the applicant entered the Regular Air Force. According to her AF Form 910, Enlisted Performance Report (AB thru TSgt), for the period ending 21 Mar 12, the applicant received a referral EPR with an overall rating of “3.” The reasons for the referral EPR include neglect of her duties, disrespect towards customers, not meeting supervisory expectations, failure to use her chain of command, a LOR for personal conduct and not presenting a proper Air Force image. According to her AF Form 910 for the period ending 2 Feb 13, she received a referral EPR with an overall rating of “3.” The reasons for the referral EPR include a Letter of Counseling (LOC)/LOR for tardiness/dereliction of duty and a MFR for unprofessional conduct. According to her DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty, the applicant retired 1 Aug 14. In a letter dated 12 Nov 14, SAF/MRBR advised the applicant that she had failed to exhaust available administrative avenues of relief for the EPR ending 3 Feb 13 prior to requesting relief from the Board; and was afforded the opportunity to request that her case be administratively closed to pursue the administrative avenues described in the advisory opinion. AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSID recommends denial of the requests to remove the contested reports. The applicant has provided insufficient documentation or evidence to prove her assertions that the contested EPR’s were written unfairly or unjustly. Air Force policy is that an evaluation report is accurate as written when it becomes a matter of record. Additionally, it is considered to represent the rating chain’s best judgment at the time it is rendered as all reports receive exhaustive reviews prior to becoming a matter of record. Furthermore, statements from all original evaluators during the contested periods are conspicuously absent. In order to effectively and successfully challenge the validity of an evaluation report, it is necessary to hear from all the members of the rating chain, not only for support but also for clarification/explanation. The applicant has failed to provide necessary information from any rating officials on the contested reports. Without the benefit of these statements, DPSID can only conclude that the reports are accurate as written. The applicant contends her EPR for the period ending 21 Mar 12 should be void and removed from her records as the LOR received during the period is no longer in her PIF. The LOR may have since been removed but it does not mean it was never issued nor does it mean it was not valid for mention on the contested EPR. LORs for Technical Sergeants (TSgt, E-6) and below are never filed in any permanent record; rather they are only a temporary part of a record until the commander trusts that it has served its purpose, then it is removed. Therefore, the mention of the contested LOR was within the evaluator’s authority. Evaluators are obligated to consider such incidents, their significance, and the frequency with which they occurred in assessing performance and potential. AFI 36-2406, Officer and Enlisted Evaluation Systems, paragraph 1.3.1, states “Evaluators are strongly encouraged to comment in performance reports on misconduct that reflects a disregard of the law, whether civil law or the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), or when adverse actions such as LORs, admonishment or counseling, or placement on the control roster have been taken.” Based upon the presumed sufficiency of the LOR and no proof the LOR was ever removed or set-aside, DPSID concludes that its mention on the contested report was proper and IAW all applicable Air Force policies and procedures. Consequently, DPSID finds this element of the applicant’s appeal to be without merit. In regards to the applicant’s request to remove the 2 Feb 13 EPR, she filed an ERAB on 27 Aug 13. The ERAB appeal case should be resolved prior to filing an application to the Board concerning the same issue. A complete copy of the 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 28 Nov 14 for review and comment within 30 days (Exhibit E). As of this date, no response has been received by this office. THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT: 1. The applicant has not exhausted all remedies provided by existing law or regulations for the EPR ending 2 Feb 13. In this respect, this Board is the highest administrative level of appeal within the Air Force. As such, an applicant must first exhaust all available avenues of administrative relief provided by existing law or regulations prior to seeking relief before this Board, as required by the governing Air Force Instruction. The Air Force Office of Primary Responsibility (OPR) has reviewed this application and indicated the EPR ending 2 Feb 13 EPR is pending review by the ERAB. In view of this, we find this portion of her request is not ripe for adjudication at this level as there exists a subordinate level of appeal that has not first been depleted. 2. The application was timely filed. 3. Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of error or injustice to warrant removing the applicant’s EPR ending 21 Mar 12. We took notice of the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of the case; however, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of the Air Force OPR and adopt its rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant has failed to sustain her burden of proof that she has been the victim of an error or injustice. Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no basis to recommend granting the relief sought in this application. 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 issues involved. Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorably considered. THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of an error or injustice; that the application was denied without a personal appearance; and that the application will only be reconsidered upon the submission of newly discovered relevant evidence not considered with the application. The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2013-05449 in Executive Session on 20 Jan 15 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: , Panel Chair , Member , Member The following documentary evidence was considered: Exhibit A. DD Forms 149, dated 4 Nov 13, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Memorandum, AFPC/DPSID, dated 7 Oct 14. Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 12 Nov 14. Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 28 Nov 14.