RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF: 	DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-04096

					COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED:  NO 




APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

Her records be corrected as follows:

1.  Her physical fitness assessments (FA), conducted on 21 Oct 10 and 21 Dec 10, be removed from her records (administratively resolved).

2.  Her enlisted performance reports (EPR), rendered for the periods 23 Dec 09 through 22 Dec 10 and 23 Dec 11 through 22 Dec 12, be amended to accurately reflect her performance without regard for the failed FAs. 



APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

She should not have been subjected to the contested FAs because she was pregnant.  As a result of the FA failures and resultant referral EPRs, she was unfairly deprived of her promotion when she lost her promotion sequence number to the grade of master sergeant (E-7).  

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



STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant initially entered the Regular Air Force on 15 May 99, and currently serves in the grade of technical sergeant (E-6).

On 21 Oct 10 and 21 Dec 10, the applicant participated in the contested FAs, attaining overall composite scores of 80.89 and 100, respectively.  These FA scores were subsequently declared void and removed from the applicant’s records by the Fitness Assessment Appeals Board (FAAB).
On 20 Jan 11, the applicant was rendered the contested EPR for the period 23 Dec 09 to 22 Dec 10.  The report is not a referral and her evaluators gave her an overall rating of “5.”  

On 12 Jul 12, the applicant was notified by her commander that he was not recommending her for promotion to the grade of master sergeant (E-7) because she had attained unsatisfactory ratings on two FAs (21 Oct 10 (now removed) & 29 Jun 12) within a 24-month period. 

On 7 Jan 13, the applicant was rendered an EPR for the period of 23 Dec 11 to 22 Dec 12 with an overall rating of “4.”  The report is not a referral and makes absolutely no mention of having failed a FA during the reporting period.  

On 21 Aug 13, based on the FAAB approval of the applicant’s request to remove the contested FAs, the applicant’s commander recommended reinstatement of her line number to E-7, which would have incremented on 1 Mar 13, and submitted an exception to policy to AFPC/DPSOE (Enlisted Promotions) for review.

On 10 Sep 13, AFPC/DPSOE approved the request and reinstated the applicant’s promotion to E-7, effective and with a date of rank (DOR) of 1 Mar 13.

The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the memorandums prepared by the Air Force offices of primary responsibility (OPR), which are attached at Exhibits C, D, and E.    



AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPSIM recommends approval of the applicant’s request to remove the 21 Oct 10 and 21 Dec 10 FAs from her records. In accordance with AFI 36-2905, Fitness Program, 1 July 2010, Chapter 4, paragraph 4.2.3.2, "Members will be exempted from FA during pregnancy."  Based on the documentation provided by the applicant, it is determined that the applicant was pregnant at the time the FAs were administered on 21 Oct and 21 Dec 10.  The applicant should have been exempted from testing at this time. 

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

AFPC/DPSID recommends denial of the applicant’s request to have the contested EPRs amended to reflect her performance without regard to the failed FAs.  By not first filing an appeal through the Evaluation Report Appeals Board (ERAB) under provisions of AFI 36-2401, Correcting Officer and Enlisted Evaluation Reports, 10 Mar 06, the applicant has not exhausted all administrative avenues of relief and her request should therefore be denied.


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



AFPC/DPSOE makes no recommendation, but indicates the applicant was considered and selected for promotion to E-7 during cycle 12E7.  She received promotion sequence number (PSN) 3613.0, which would have incremented 1 Mar 13; however, she became ineligible on 12 Jul 12 when she was non-recommended by her commander for promotion due to FA failure.  AFPC/DPSIM, via the FAAB, approved applicant's request to remove the contested FAs.  On 21 Aug 13, the applicant's commander recommended reinstatement of line number and submitted an exception to policy request to AFPC/DPSOE for review.  On 10 Sep 13, the request was approved and the applicant's promotion to E-7 was reinstated. 

A complete copy of the AFPC/DPSOE evaluation is at Exhibit E.  



APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on 16 Sep 14 for review and comment within 30 days (Exhibit D).  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.

2.  The application was timely filed.

3.  Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of error or injustice with respect to the applicant’s request to modify the contested enlisted performance reports.  In this respect, we note 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.  AFPC/DPSID has reviewed this application and determined the Evaluation Reports Appeals Board (ERAB) is an available avenue of administrative relief the applicant has not first pursued in regards to amending her EPRs.  In view of this, we find this application is not ripe for adjudication at this level, as there exists a subordinate level of appeal that has not first been depleted.  We note the Fitness Assessment Appeals Board (FAAB) has determined the applicant’s fitness assessments (FA), dated 21 Oct 10 and 21 Dec 10, should be declared void and removed from the applicant’s records.  Therefore, in view of the above, we find no basis to recommend granting relief beyond that rendered administratively.



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-2013-04096 in Executive Session on 23 Oct 14 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

	

The following documentary evidence was considered:

	Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 8 Aug 14, w/atchs.
	Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
	Exhibit C.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPSIM, dated 9 Jan 14. 
	Exhibit D.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPSID, dated 7 Jul 14.
	Exhibit E.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPSOE, dated 15 Aug 14.
Exhibit F.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 16 Sep 14.

						



4

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY – PRIVACY ACT OF 1974


FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY – PRIVACY ACT OF 1974
4