RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-04551
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: YES
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His Referral Enlisted Performance Report (EPR), rendered for the period of 21 Jun 12 through 20 Jun 13, be voided or removed from his military personnel records.
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
The contested EPR rating of 4 was unjust and was not handled to a standard that is enforced consistently and fairly throughout his unit as well as the wing he is assigned to. He was given the referral for becoming non-current in his physical fitness assessment (FA) at the time of the EPR close-out date, issued as a failure to meet Air Force standards. There was no malicious intent or deception on his part for missing his FA due date. Contributing factors were his significantly increased workload since Feb 13, being tasked for two temporary duty (TDY) assignments, and having to attend an accreditation course required for all DoD fire departments during this rating period. However, another member of his squadron was treated more leniently (only issued a Letter of Counseling) for failure to schedule and pass his FA on time. His squadron leadership failed when reviewing his Quality Force Indicators (QFI), saying he was good to go as late as 13 Jun 13 as his EPR went forward for closeout signatures with a firewall 5 rating. His First Sergeant, as part of his responsibilities, failed to notify his rater of any discrepancies (i.e.: outdated FA) that needed to be corrected prior to the EPR closeout date.
The applicants complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The applicant currently serves in the Regular Air Force in the grade of technical sergeant (E-6).
On 15 Jul 13, the contested EPR was referred to the applicant for a does not meet standards rating in Block 3 (Fitness) and comments indicating that he inadvertently failed to remain current on his fitness test.
In accordance with AFI 36-2406, Officer and Enlisted Evaluation Systems, chapter 10, paragraph 10.1.1: The Evaluation Reports Appeal Board (ERAB) was established to provide all Air Force personnel with an avenue of relief for correcting errors or injustices in evaluations at the lowest possible level.
The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are described in the letters prepared by the Air Force offices of primary responsibility (OPR), which are attached at Exhibits C and D.
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
AFPC/DPSID recommends denial indicating there is no evidence of an error or an injustice. The applicant has not filed an appeal of his EPR through the ERAB under the provisions of AFI 36-2406. Additionally, his request for review is not in accordance with AFI 36-2401, Correcting Officer and Enlisted Evaluation Reports, as it lacks a substitute report signed by the evaluators who signed the original report. The evaluation was completed appropriately and within regulatory Air Force requirements. The main cause of the referral was not due to an inconsistency of punishment throughout the squadron, but simply the applicants failure to remain current with his FA.
A complete copy of the AFPC/DPSID evaluation is at Exhibit C.
AFPC/DPSIM recommends denial indicating there is no evidence of an error or injustice. Although this office recommends denial, they acknowledge that their office is not the office of primary responsibility for EPRs and defers recommendation of the removal of the EPR to the Enlisted Evaluation Branch.
A complete copy of the AFPC/DPSIM evaluation is at Exhibit D.
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on 22 May 14 for review and comment within 30 days. As of this date, no response has been received by this office (Exhibit D).
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. 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 indicated the ERAB is an available avenue of administrative relief the applicant has not first pursued. 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. Therefore, in view of the above, we find no compelling basis to recommend granting the relief sought in this application.
4. The applicants 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 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-2013-04551 in Executive Session on 2 Sep 14, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:
The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2013-04551 was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 10 Sep 13, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPSID, dated 21 Jan 14.
Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/DPSIM, dated 24 Mar 14.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 22 May 14
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 05761
In Accordance With (IAW) AFI 36-2905, Fitness Program, dated 21 Oct 13, any military member can appeal their FA through a wing-level appeals board and then through the AFPC Fitness Assessment Appeals Board (FAAB) within two years of discovering the error/injustice. The applicant did not file an appeal through the Evaluation Report Appeals Board (ERAB) under the provisions of AFI 36-2406, Officer and Enlisted Evaluation Systems. Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 17 Oct 14.
AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 01675
Applicants EPR closeout profile for the last four years is as follows: CLOSEOUT RATING 13 Sep 10 2 13 Sep 11 5 13 Sep 12 5 * 17 May 13 4 Directed by Commander 1 Nov 13 5 Directed by same Commander 30 Nov 14 5 * Contested EPR The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the memorandum prepared by the Air Force office of primary responsibility (OPR), which is attached at Exhibit C. AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSID recommends denial indicating there is no...
AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-03248
The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application, extracted from the applicants military records are contained in the letters prepared by the appropriate offices of the Air Force at Exhibits C, and D. ________________________________________________________________ THE AIR FORCE EVALUATION: HQ AFPC/DPSID recommends denial of the applicant's request to change or void the contested EPR. DPSID states the applicant did not file an appeal through the Evaluation Report Appeals Board...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 04096
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 applicants request to remove the 21 Oct 10 and 21 Dec 10 FAs from her records. 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...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC-2012-00021
The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the letters prepared by the appropriate offices of the Air Force at Exhibits C, D, E, and G. ________________________________________________________________ THE AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSIM recommends denial of the applicant’s request to remove his 19 Feb 2010 FA from the AFFMS. DPSIM states the applicant is requesting his FA dated 19 Feb 2010 be removed from the AFFMS. The complete DPSID evaluation, with...
AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-01916
His referral Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) rendered for the period 21 Sep 2010 through 20 Aug 2011, be voided from his records. The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the letters prepared by the appropriate offices of the Air Force at Exhibits D and E. ________________________________________________________________ THE AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSIM recommends denial of the applicants request to void his referral EPR. ...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 01305
The complete DPSID evaluation is at Exhibit D. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: On 13 Jun 14, copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant for review and comment within 30 days. While the applicant has provided medical documentation indicating a medical condition precluded him from achieving a passing score in a non-exempt portion of the contested FA, he has not met with burden of proving it...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 02568
On 16 May 13, his medical provider indorsed a letter dated 29 Apr 13 stating the applicant was diagnosed with iron deficient anemia in 2011 and then again in 2012 but it was never followed up. The applicant did not file an appeal through the Evaluation Report Appeals Board (ERAB) under the provisions of AFI 36-2401, Correcting Officer and Enlisted Evaluation Reports; because he is no longer on active duty. The complete DPSID evaluation is at Exhibit...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 05806
Having received and considered the FA appeal request on the applicant, under authority of AFI 36-2905, Fitness Program, the Fitness Assessment Appeals Board (FAAB) has disapproved action because the applicant has provided no specific details pertaining to the purported medical condition. A complete copy of the AFPC/DPSIM evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit C. AFPC/DPSID recommends denial of the applicants request to remove the contested referral EPRs indicating there is no evidence...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 02880
In a letter dated 7 Apr 14, the applicants Primary Care Manager (PCM) stated that it was evident that the Synthroid regimen was being adjusted when the applicant failed her now one remaining FA failure on the AC measure. The complete FAAB evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit B. AFPC/DPSID recommends denial of the applicants request for removal of her referral EPR for the period through 16 Jun 11. In this respect, we note the applicant provides a letter dated 7 Apr 14, from her PCM...