RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2012-05708
			COUNSEL:  NONE
	 XXXX		HEARING DESIRED: NOT INDICATED

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His referral EPR for the period of 1 Apr 2009 through 31 Mar 2010 be declared void and removed from his records. 
 
________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He should have received a Change of Reporting Official (CRO) EPR with a close out date of 23 Dec 2009 when his supervisor was scheduled to deploy.  At this time, he had more than 120 days of supervision for a CRO report and his Fitness Assessment (FA) was current.  

His EPR was delayed without reason until his annual EPR due date in Mar 2010.  His superintendent had a personal vendetta against him and deliberately held the EPR.

His FA was overdue and he was required to complete it immediately upon returning from convalescent leave.  He was battling numerous medical issues at the time and as a result, he failed the 23 Mar 2010 FA. 

As a result of the failed FA, he received a referral EPR.  He submitted a rebuttal of the referral EPR based on his medical condition and doctor’s recommendation but his request was denied.  

His promotion to the grade of technical sergeant (E-6) was canceled.   

In support of his request, he provides a personal statement and copies of his Report of Individual Personnel (RIP), Case Management Tracking (CMT) information, referral EPR, AFFMS printout and Standard Form (SF) 600, Chronological Record of Medical Care.  

The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.

________________________________________________________________


STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant is serving on active duty in the grade of staff sergeant (E-5).

On 15 Jan 2010, he had surgery on his right ankle and was on convalescent leave until 15 Mar 2010.

On 23 Mar 2010, the applicant failed his FA with a score of 72.00.  He was exempt from the cardio, push-up and sit-up components.  

He received a referral EPR for the period of 1 Apr 2009 to     31 Mar 2010 for the failed FA. 

His promotion to the grade of technical sergeant with a projected date of rank and effective date of 1 Sep 2010 was canceled as a result of the failed FA.  

The applicant’s most recent FA results are as follows:

Date 
Composite Score
Rating
25 Jan 2013
85.00
Satisfactory (Exempt: cardio, push-ups, sit-ups)
27 Jul 2012
88.00
Satisfactory  (Exempt: cardio, push-ups, sit-ups)
30 Jan 2012
79.00
Satisfactory (Exempt: cardio, push-ups, sit-ups)
8 Jul 2011
85.00
Satisfactory (Exempt: cardio, push-ups, sit-ups)
1 Apr 2011
72.00
Unsatisfactory (Exempt: cardio, push-ups, sit-ups)
9 Sep 2010
75.50
Satisfactory (Exempt: cardio, push-ups, sit-ups)
23 Mar 2010 
72.00
Poor (Exempt: cardio, push-ups, sit-ups)
24 Feb 2009
82.17
Good (Exempt: push-ups)

The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are described in the letter prepared by the Air Force office of primary responsibility, which is included at Exhibit B.  

________________________________________________________________




AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPSIM recommends denial of the applicant’s request to void his 23 Mar 2010 FA.  DPSIM states that the applicant was tested in accordance with established guidelines in Air Force Instruction (AFI) 10-248, Air Force Fitness Program.  He was placed on a profile exempting him from the cardio, push-up and sit-up components but not the abdominal circumference which was the only component measured during the 23 Mar 2010 FA.  The frequency of FAs is based on the score of the previous FA with the applicant’s scoring excellent/good to be tested within     12 months of the most recent assessment.  In the applicant’s case, he should have been scheduled for a FA on 24 Feb 2010.  However, because the applicant was on convalescent leave, it is assumed the test was delayed until 23 Mar 2010 to prevent his FA status from reflecting as noncurrent, which would also have resulted in a referral EPR.  

The complete DPSIM evaluation is at Exhibit B.

DPSID recommends denial of the applicant’s request.  The applicant has not provided sufficient substantiating documentation or evidence to prove his assertions that the contested evaluation was rendered unfairly or unjustly, and has merely offered his view of events in the light that is most beneficial to him.  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.  To effectively challenge an evaluation, 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 any information from all the rating officials on the contested report.  It is determined that the report was accomplished in direct accordance with all applicable Air Force policies and procedures. We contend that once a report is accepted for file, only strong evidence to the contrary warrants correction or removal from an individual's record.  The burden of proof is on the applicant. The applicant has not substantiated that the contested report was not rendered accurately and in good faith by all evaluators based on knowledge available at the time.  

Furthermore, at the time the applicant failed his FA, he was already in an overdue status or non-current (over 13 months had passed since the last fitness assessment on file), and that alone would have caused the report to be a referral.  DPSID concludes that it was the applicant's failure to maintain fitness standards that caused the report to be a referred, not any other circumstance. It was ultimately the applicant's responsibility to be ready to successfully pass the required fitness evaluation 

The report was rightly closed out at the time his annual report was due and was completed in accordance with applicable Air Force policies and procedures.
  
The complete DPSID evaluation is at Exhibit C.

_______________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The EPR did not include his performance for the entire rating period.  His rater was scheduled to deploy on 23 Dec 2009 and no information as to his performance beyond 19 Dec 2009 was included in the EPR.  His rater did not supervise him for 267 days as indicated on the EPR and his FA was current as of 23 Dec 2009, the correct close out date.  

The applicant provides a letter from a master sergeant who states he was the applicant’s rater t the time and ceased being the applicant’s supervisor effective Dec 2009.  He states that the EPR should have been closed out as a CRO in Dec 2009.  Instead, his command required him to write an EPR 90 days out and mark it as an annual even though it was 90 days before the close out date.  

In support of his request, the applicant provides a list of accomplishments, personal statement, and other documents associated with his request.  

The applicant’s complete response, with attachments, is at Exhibit E.  

________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

1.  The applicant has not exhausted all remedies provided by existing law or regulations.

2.  The application was timely filed.  

3.  Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of an error or injustice.  We took careful notice of the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of the case; however, we find no evidence of an error or injustice.  We note that the applicant provides a letter from the rater who wrote the contested report stating that he was not aware that the report should have been a CRO versus an annual report.  However, contrary to the rater’s assertions, the evidence reflects that he signed the report and the referral memorandum on 4 May 2010, after the closeout date of the report.  Additionally, there is no mention in the referral process, to include the applicant’s rebuttal to the referral EPR, that indicates the closeout date was incorrect or that the report was not completed in accordance with the requirements of AFI 36-2406.   As such we are not persuaded by the evidence provided that the contested report is not a true and accurate assessment of his performance and demonstrated potential during the specified time period or that the closeout dates on the report are in error or contrary to the provisions of the governing instruction.  Therefore, we agree with the opinions and recommendations of the Air Force offices of primary responsibility and adopt their rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant has failed to sustain his burden of proof that he has been the victim of an error or injustice.  In view of the foregoing, and in the absence of sufficient evidence to the contrary, we find no basis to recommend granting any of 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 issue involved. 

_______________________________________________________________

THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:

The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of material 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 this application.

________________________________________________________________

The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2012-05708 in Executive Session on 9 Jan 2014, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

       , Panel Chair
       , Member
       , Member
      
The following documentary evidence was considered:    

     Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 1 Dec 2012, w/atch.
     Exhibit B.  Letter, AFPC/DPSIM, dated 15 Jul 2013, w/atch.
     Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPSID, dated 16 Sep 2013.
     Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 15 Oct 2013.  
     Exhibit E.  E-mail, Applicant, dated 15 Nov 2013, w/atch.  




                                    
                                   Panel Chair