RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF: 	DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-04901

					COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED:  NO 



APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

1.  His referral Enlisted Performance Report (EPR), covering the period 9 Jun 09 through 8 Jun 10, be declared void and removed from this record. 

2.  His EPRs, covering the periods 9 Jun 10 through 24 Dec 10 and 25 Dec 10 through 24 Dec 11, be corrected.



APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

1.  He requested the Air Force Personnel Center (AFPC) send him a copy of his rebuttal to the referral EPR, dated 8 Jun 10, but AFPC could not locate the full rebuttal as seven attachments are missing.  The fact his rebuttal is not on file with the referral EPR leaves him with a stigma.  Therefore, the referral EPR itself should be removed from his record. 

2.  As for his EPRs closing 24 Dec 10 and 24 Dec 11, he did not receive appropriate mid-term feedback and he was not administratively counseled for failing to meet any of the performance assessments as documented in Section 3.

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



STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant initially entered the Regular Air Force on 9 Aug 90. 

On 29 Jul 10, the applicant received a referral EPR, covering the period 9 Jun 09 through 8 Jun 10, on which he received a rating of “Does Not Meet” Standards for Conduct, Character, and Military Bearing in Section III, Block 2.  The EPR contained a bullet stating “Violated Article 134 of UCMJ: made inappropriate sexual comments to subordinate; received LOR and UIF.”  The applicant submitted a rebuttal to the referral EPR on 28 Jul 10, which the applicant’s additional rater took into consideration before signing the EPR. 

On 25 Jan 11, the applicant received an EPR, covering the period 9 Jun 10 through 24 Dec 10, which indicated in Section V that he received feedback on 15 Jun 10.  In Block IX, the applicant checked “No” indicating he did not agree that feedback was accomplished. 

On 20 Mar 12, the applicant received an EPR, covering the period 25 Dec 10 through 24 Dec 11, which indicated in Section V that he received feedback on 22 Jul 11 and “at least 5 more informal sessions for needed performance feedback were conducted although not documented.  Counselings were appropriate & timely to address concerns.”  In Block IX, the applicant checked “No” indicating he did not agree that feedback was accomplished. 

On 30 Jun 14, the applicant voluntarily retired in the grade of Mater Sergeant, and was credited with 23 years, 10 months, and 30 days of total active service.  

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 evidence of an error or an injustice.  The applicant did file an appeal through the Evaluation Reports Appeals Board (ERAB), however the ERAB determined there was no error or injustice and denied his request.  During the contested reporting period, the applicant received a Letter of Reprimand (LOR) for making inappropriate sexual remarks to a subordinate.  The evaluators are obligated to consider such incidents, their significance, and their frequency with which they occurred in assessing his performance and potential.  The rating chain appropriately chose to document the underlying wrong doing, which caused the report to be a referral.  The applicant provided no evidence within his case to show the original EPR was inaccurate or unjust; rather, he attempts to invalidate the entire report based on a missing rebuttal.  In accordance with AFI 36-2406, Officer and Enlisted Evaluation System, EPR rebuttals are limited to a total of ten pages.  The ten-page restriction is necessary due to space limitations in personnel records and selection folders.  The applicant was completely aware of this restriction as he signed and acknowledged his referral EPR memo which stated the page restriction.  The applicant’s rebuttal was over ten pages, so the Automated Records Management System (ARMS) was unable to upload the rebuttal with the original EPR.  However, the applicant’s version of his rebuttal should be added to the original EPR, which is already a matter of record rather than voiding the EPR in its entirety.  Air Force policy is that an evaluation report is accurate as written when it becomes a matter or record.  It represents the rating chain’s best judgment at the time it was rendered.  This report was accomplished in accordance with all applicable Air Force policies and procedures.  The applicant has provided insufficient documentation or evidence to provide the contested EPR was rendered unfairly or unjustly.  

A complete copy of the 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 27 Oct 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 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.  The applicant contends that because pages of his rebuttal to the contested referral enlisted performance report (EPR) are missing, he is the victim of an injustice and the contested EPR should therefore be removed.  However, we are not convinced that the applicant is the victim of an error or injustice.  In this respect, we note the comments of the Air Force office of primary responsibility indicating that despite the fact the applicant signed a statement of understanding acknowledging that         AFI 36-2406, Officer and Enlisted Evaluation System, which limits a rebuttal to a referral EPR to ten pages, he authored a rebuttal of more than ten pages.  In our view, the fact that the applicant knowingly violated this policy cannot now form the basis for the removal of the contested EPR, particularly when the applicant has provided no evidence that said report is somehow inaccurate or unfair.  Furthermore, while we note the comments of the Air Force OPR indicating that this Board should direct that the missing pages be added to his record, we are not convinced that the evidence provided by the applicant should cause us to recommend a remedy that is contrary to Air Force policy.  as for his remaining requests, while the Board notes the applicant’s contention that he did not receive midterm feedback on the EPRs closing 24 Dec 10 and 24 Dec 11, the EPRs in question reflect that appropriate feedback was provided, and other than his own contentions, the applicant has provided no documentation to indicate feedback was not accomplished or that these EPRs were somehow an inaccurate reflection of his performance and potential.  Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no basis to recommend granting the requested relief.



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-2013-04901 in Executive Session on 13 Nov 14 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

	Panel Chair
	Member
	Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

	Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 21 Oct 13, w/atchs.
	Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
	Exhibit C.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPSID, dated 7 Oct 14.
Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 27 Oct 14.

						










4





FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY – PRIVACY ACT OF 1974


FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY – PRIVACY ACT OF 1974
1

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY – PRIVACY ACT OF 1974


FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY – PRIVACY ACT OF 1974
1