RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2013-02896

		COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED:  YES


________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

Her Enlisted Performance Reports (EPR), rendered for the periods 
2 Aug 90 through 31 Mar 90 and 1 Apr 90 through 31 Mar 91, be 
reevaluated and she receive promotion consideration to grade of 
staff sergeant (E-5).

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

She was sexually assaulted while on active duty by a member of 
her chain of command.  She was also subjected to racial 
discrimination by her rater from 2 Aug 90 through 31 Mar 91.  

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

________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant commenced her initial period of service in the 
Regular Air Force on 31 Jul 85.

On 4 Mar 95, she was released from active duty with service 
characterized as honorable and was issued a narrative reason for 
separation of “Early Release Program – Special Separation 
Benefit.”  She was credited with nine years, seven months, and 
four days of total active service.  

The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are 
described in the letters prepared by the Air Force offices of 
primary responsibility, which are attached at Exhibits C and D.

________________________________________________________________





AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPSID recommends denial due to the extensive delay in the 
submission of this request and no evidence was provided showing 
the reports in question were inaccurate as written or unjust.  
The applicant did not file an appeal through the Evaluations 
Report Appeals Board (ERAB).  The contested reports have been a 
matter of record for over 23 years.  The test to be applied is 
not merely whether the applicant discovered the error within 
three years, but whether through due diligence, she could or 
should have discovered the error.  The applicant has not 
provided any reason as for the delay in submitting her claim.  
Her delay in filing this appeal has caused prejudice to the Air 
Force as relevant records are no longer available, memories have 
failed, and witnesses are unavailable, which complicates the 
ability to determine the merits of the case.

In Dec 87, the Deputy Chief of Staff, Personnel, directed a 
study on 20 year old non-commissioned officer and airman 
performance reports (APR) system, to identify any problems, and 
make recommendations as to whether any changes needed to be 
made.  It was determined that the system was administratively 
burdensome and it had two basic problems; most people did not 
view the APR as a feedback device, and rating and endorsement 
inflation had limited the APR's value in making management 
decisions.  As of 1 Oct 89, all Enlisted Performance Reports 
(EPR) closing on Sergeants/Senior Airmen must be accomplished on 
the new AF 910, Enlisted Performance Report (AB thru TSGT).

The applicant alleges her previous performance reports were 
exceptional; however, without any evidence to support otherwise, 
DPSID can only conclude she was accurately rated with the AF 
910's in 1990 and 1991.  No evidence was provided showing the 
contested EPRs were inaccurate or unjust.  A final review of the 
contested reports was accomplished by the endorser and 
subsequent agreement by the commander served as a final "check 
and balance" to ensure that the reports were given a fair 
consideration in accordance with the evaluation system in place 
at that time.  Based upon the evidence provided, or lack 
thereof, the contested reports were accurate and in accordance 
with any applicable Air Force policies and procedures.

The applicant has provided unsupported allegations, personal 
opinions, and no proof that any of the events occurred as she 
alleges happened.  Unsubstantiated conjecture about the motives 
of the evaluators, or how/why the report turned out as it did do 
not contribute to the case.  The applicant must provide factual, 
specific, and substantiated information that is from credible 
officials and is based on firsthand observation.  The ERAB works 
under the assumption that evaluation reports are accurate and 
objective.  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 to 
prove an error or injustice.  She has not substantiated that the 
contested EPRs were not rendered in good faith by all evaluators 
based on knowledge available at the time.  Furthermore, 
statements from any of the evaluators during the contested 
period are conspicuously absent. In order to successfully 
challenge the validity of an evaluation report, it is important 
to hear from the evaluators-not necessarily for support, but at 
least for clarification/explanation.  The applicant has not 
provided any documentation from her rating chain.  Without 
benefit of these statements, it must be concluded that the EPRs 
are accurate as written.  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.  

A complete copy of the AFPC/DPSID evaluation is at Exhibit C.

AFPC/JA recommends denial indicating the applicant's request 
should be denied based on her failure to file a timely 
application.  Even if the time standards were waived and her 
application was considered on the merits, there was no evidence 
showing the applicant was the victim of an error or injustice.

The applicant received an overall rating of “4” on the contested 
EPRs.  Both EPRs reflect several mark-downs, the most notable is 
the 31 Mar 91 EPR with a "Meets Air Force standards" under "How 
Well Does Ratee Comply With Standards?"  This called for the 
rater to consider the applicant’s dress and appearance, weight 
and fitness.  Both EPRs contain the signatures of senior raters 
in the rank of SMSgt (E-8) who concurred in the ratings, but 
were not named as part of this request.

The applicant noted in her claim to the Department of Veterans 
Affairs (DVA) that she was a distinguished graduate in 
leadership school and that her rater told her he expected Airman 
K. (who was white) to be an honor student, but not the 
applicant.  This is the only specific mention of any possible 
racial discrimination made by the applicant against her rater. 
The applicant’s supporting statements appear to be based on 
information they received from the applicant and deal with the 
alleged sexual assault by her commanding officer.  The applicant 
further indicated she reported the assault to her rater and he 
overlooked the complaint.  The applicant believes the evaluation 
she received from her rater combined with the information she 
provided, explains why she did not make SSgt (E-5).

The alleged error or injustice in this case occurred 23 years 
ago.  It is clear the applicant was aware of the challenged 
behavior in 1990 and 1991.  Based on the available evidence, the 
applicant never raised the alleged error or injustice until 
2013.  The applicant has not provided an adequate explanation 
for the delay or any explanation as to why it would be in the 
interest of justice for the Board to waive the time limit. 
Instead, she claims that she was devastated and did not know 
what to do at the time, and just recently been made aware of her 
rights as an Air Force veteran, and due to the stress and fear 
she has been mentally incapable for 24 years.  If the 
circumstances in 1990-1991 were really as egregious and 
devastating as the applicant suggests in the application, it 
hardly seems reasonable that she would not have complained in 
some way or sought redress closer in time to the alleged 
injustices.

The applicant has not provided any corroborating evidence that 
she was discriminated against, such as, Inspector General (IG) 
complaint or any other independent investigative report. 

The applicant has failed to show any error with respect to her 
military record that resulted from the alleged assault or that 
the Board could correct.  The available records do not show a 
connection between the applicant's allegations against her 
commanding officer and the disputed EPRs.  The commanding 
officer was not in her rating chain, and she did not identify 
how he may have influenced her rater or her senior raters in 
evaluating her performance on two of the four EPRs that were 
accomplished during his time as commanding officer.  The sexual 
assault allegations seem to be part of a more general claim that 
the applicant suffered injustice throughout her rating periods 
and should be given a reassessment based on all the injustices 
experienced by her before her discharge.  While the lifelong 
trauma applicant states she has suffered may be very real, it 
does not translate to a basis to remove the questioned EPRs or 
promote her retroactively to staff sergeant.

A complete copy of the AFPC/JA evaluation is at Exhibit D.

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the 
applicant on 9 May 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 exhausted all remedies provided by 
existing law or regulations.

2.  The application was not timely filed; however, it is in the 
interest of justice to excuse the failure to timely file.

3.  Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to 
demonstrate the existence of an error or injustice.  The 
applicant contends the contested performance reports were 
unjust.  She alleges she was sexually assaulted by an individual 
in her chain of command and was subjected to racial 
discrimination by her rater.  We took notice of the applicant’s 
complete submission in judging the merits of the case; however, 
we agree with the opinions and recommendations of the Air Force 
offices of primary responsibility (OPR) and adopt their 
rationale as the basis for our conclusion the applicant has not 
been the victim of an error or injustice.  There was no evidence 
provided showing the contested reports were not an accurate 
assessment of her performance during the periods in question, 
were erroneously prepared, or that the assigned ratings were in 
error or contrary to the provisions of the governing 
instruction.  Furthermore, we found no evidence to substantiate 
her allegations of discrimination against her by her rater.  We 
note the applicant’s assertions of being sexually assaulted by 
her commander during the period in question.  We note the 
commander was not in her rating chain during the period in 
question, and there is no evidence he influenced her rating 
chain in evaluating the applicant’s performance.  While we do 
not take allegations of sexual assault lightly, and are 
sensitive to the applicant’s well-being, neither the evidence of 
record, nor the documentation provided show a connection between 
the contested EPRs and the alleged sexual assault.  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 issue(s) 
involved.  Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorably 
considered.

________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:

The applicant be notified the evidence presented did not 
demonstrate the existence of material error or injustice; the 
application was denied without a personal appearance; and 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-2013-02896 in Executive Session on 10 Jun 14, under 
the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

	, Panel Chair
	, Member
	, Member
The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket 
Number BC-2013-02896 was considered:

	Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 3 Jun 13, w/atchs.
	Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records
	Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPSID, dated 11 Apr 14.
	Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/JA, dated 23 Apr 14
	Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 9 May 14.




                                   Panel Chair