RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2012-02655

		COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED: YES

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

Her AF Form 910, Enlisted Performance Report (AB thru TSgt) 
(EPR), for the period of 9 April 2009 thru 8 April 2010 be 
declared void and removed from her records.

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

1.  Due to a 118-day temporary duty (TDY) assignment and the 
fact that she was not supervised by any of the four supervisors 
for at least 120-days as required by the AFI, the report was not 
valid and should be removed.

2.  She had four different supervisors during the rating period.  
The person who signed section IV of her EPR was not her 
supervisor during the rating period.    

3.  The AFI states “commanders may deviate from the normal 
(supervisory) rating chain only when necessary to meet grade 
requirements or to accommodate unique organizational structures 
and situations where personnel are temporarily loaned or 
matrixed to other activities outside of the ratee’s Permanently 
Assigned Station (PAS).  It is prohibited to make rating chain 
deviations (such as skipping an evaluator) solely for the 
reasons of convenience.  Example: Do not skip a rater’s rater 
who is temporarily unavailable (on leave, TDY, etc.).”  
Moreover, she has provided several AF Forms 988, Leave Request 
Authorizations to corroborate statements provided by her raters.  
Based on conflicting information she has suffered an injustice 
and requests the Board please remove the erroneous EPR.  

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

________________________________________________________________





STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant is currently serving in the Regular Air Force in 
the grade of Technical Sergeant, E-6, having assumed that grade 
effective and with date of rank (DOR) of 1 January 2010.  

The applicant’s EPR profile is listed below:

			PERIOD ENDING		OVERALL EVALUATION

			  30 Sep 2011			5B
			  03 Dec 2010			5B
			* 08 Apr 2010			4B
			  08 Apr 2009			5B
			  08 Apr 2008			5B

*Contested Report

________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPSID recommends denial.  DPSID states the applicant has 
not provided evidence to show that the report is unjust or 
inaccurate at the time it was originally written. 

	  a. The applicant filed two appeals through the Evaluations 
Report Appeals Board (ERAB) under the provisions of AFI 36-2401, 
Correcting Officer and Enlisted Evaluation Reports, 10, Mar 06.  
The ERAB reviewed both applications and was not convinced the 
contested report was inaccurate or unjust.

	  b. It is clear that the applicant had different individuals 
who served in supervisory capacities over her during the rating 
period, but only two of these individuals stand out as 
individuals with actual rating official responsibilities during 
this rating period.  They were able to determine from reviewing 
the Military Personnel Data System (MilPDS), Automated Records 
Management System (ARMS), and Personnel Records Display 
Application (PRDA) that MSgt W, one of the two individuals, did 
in fact digitally sign the applicant’s EPR as the rater.  MSgt W 
was recorded as having 252 days of supervision on the report, 
which matches the data contained in MilPDS.  This would infer 
that there was another individual who had rating 
responsibilities during the first 113 days of the rating period.  
After a careful review of the evidence provided in the case, 
they concluded that this person was most likely MSgt J., who 
confirmed in a provided email that MSgt(s) W and J were the only 
two individuals during the contested rating period that had 
direct supervision over the applicant.  They contend that any 
other individual named in this case merely acted in a 
supervisory capacity during the rating period, and did not have 
any actual rating responsibilities, contrary to the applicant’s 
misguided belief that they in fact did.  AFI 36-2401, paragraph 
A1.5.17, states that the Air Force does not require a designated 
rater to be your immediate supervisor.  Inaccurate designations 
and failures to change raters may occur, when personnel are 
reassigned, work centers reorganized, functional units 
realigned, etc.  Nevertheless, the applicant has not provided 
concrete evidence that the rater of record did not accumulate at 
least 120 days of total supervision and as such we dismiss this 
allegation and find it to be without any merit.   

	  c. The applicant also provided, in her case, a number of 
leave request forms which were signed by different approving 
officials.  The applicant mistakenly believes that these forms 
serve as evidence that these additional individuals were her 
rating officials, but nothing could be further from the truth.  
It is common practice within the Air Force that leave approving 
authorities are delegated from direct rating officials.  In the 
cases presented, it appears to be exactly what transpired and 
nothing more.  Therefore, the evidence the applicant provides in 
this case is irrelevant and certainly not germane to her overall 
appeal.

	  d. Air Force policy is that an evaluation report is accurate 
as written when it becomes a matter of record.  They 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.  She has not 
substantiated the contested report was not rendered in good 
faith by all evaluators based on the knowledge available at the 
time.  To effectively challenge an evaluation it is necessary to 
hear from all members of the rating chain, not only for support, 
but also for clarification/explanation.  The applicant 
conspicuously has failed to provide any information or support 
from the additional rater or commander on the contested 
evaluation.  Without the benefit of these additional statements 
they can only conclude that the report was accurate at the time 
that it was written.  Finally, it is determined that the report 
was accomplished in direct accordance with applicable 
regulations.  

The complete 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 25 September 2012 for review and comment within 30 
days (Exhibit D).  To 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.  Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to 
demonstrate the existence of error or injustice.  We took notice 
of the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of 
the case; however, we do not find her assertions sufficient to 
override the rationale provided by the Air Force office of 
primary responsibility.  Therefore, we agree with the opinion 
and recommendation of the Air Force office of primary 
responsibility and adopt its rationale as the basis for our 
conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of an 
error or injustice.  In the absence of evidence to the contrary, 
we find no compelling 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 issue(s) 
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 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 this application 
in Executive Session on 12 February 2013, under the provisions 
of AFI 36-2603:

		, Panel Chair
      , Member
		, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered in AFBCMR 
Docket Number BC-2012-02655:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149 dated 31 May 2012, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant’s Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPSID, dated 14 July 2012.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 25 September 2012.




                                   
                                   Panel Chair



AFBCMR
1500 West Perimeter Road, Suite 3700
Joint Base Andrews NAF Washington, MD 20762




Dear:

	Reference your application submitted under the provisions of AFI 36-2603 (Section 1552, 
10 USC), AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2012-02655. 

	After careful consideration of your application and military records, the Board determined 
that the evidence you presented did not demonstrate the existence of material error or injustice.  
Accordingly, the Board denied your application.

	You have the right to submit newly discovered relevant evidence for consideration by the 
Board.  In the absence of such additional evidence, a further review of your application is not 
possible.

	BY DIRECTION OF THE PANEL CHAIR




				                                   
				                                   Chief Examiner
				                                   Air Force Board for Correction
				                                   of Military Records

Attachment:
Record of Board Proceedings


5






 

DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE
WASHINGTON, DC


Office of the Assistant Secretary


DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE