RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF: 			DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-05449
 					COUNSEL:  NONE
					HEARING DESIRED:  YES


APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

1.  Her Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) for the period ending 
21 Mar 12 be removed from her record.  

2.  Her EPR for the period ending 2 Feb 13 be removed from her 
record.  


APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The EPR for the period ending 21 Mar 12 includes a negative 
comment stating she received a Letter of Reprimand (LOR); however 
this LOR is not in her Personal Information File (PIF) nor is 
there any evidence of it in her records.

She asked her commander, first sergeant and flight superintendent 
about the LOR and they do not know where this LOR is or whether it 
was ever a part of her record.  The rater and unit commander have 
since retired.  

On 3 Oct 13, she spoke to her group commander who told her that it 
was determined that the LOR should not have been given to her and 
therefore it is not in her record.

The EPR for the period ending 2 Feb 13 includes a false claim that 
she did not secure the vault in her work center.  She obtained a 
Memorandum For Record (MFR) from security forces stating that the 
vault was secured during her shift.   

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


STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 20 Aug 97, the applicant entered the Regular Air Force.  

According to her AF Form 910, Enlisted Performance Report (AB thru 
TSgt), for the period ending 21 Mar 12, the applicant received a 
referral EPR with an overall rating of “3.”  The reasons for the 
referral EPR include neglect of her duties, disrespect towards 
customers, not meeting supervisory expectations, failure to use 
her chain of command, a LOR for personal conduct and not 
presenting a proper Air Force image.  

According to her AF Form 910 for the period ending 2 Feb 13, she 
received a referral EPR with an overall rating of “3.”  The 
reasons for the referral EPR include a Letter of Counseling 
(LOC)/LOR for tardiness/dereliction of duty and a MFR for 
unprofessional conduct.

According to her DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge 
from Active Duty, the applicant retired 1 Aug 14.  

In a letter dated 12 Nov 14, SAF/MRBR advised the applicant that 
she had failed to exhaust available administrative avenues of 
relief for the EPR ending 3 Feb 13 prior to requesting relief from 
the Board; and was afforded the opportunity to request that her 
case be administratively closed to pursue the administrative 
avenues described in the advisory opinion.


AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPSID recommends denial of the requests to remove the 
contested reports.  The applicant has provided insufficient 
documentation or evidence to prove her assertions that the 
contested EPR’s were written unfairly or unjustly.  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 as all reports receive exhaustive reviews prior to 
becoming a matter of record.  Furthermore, statements from all 
original evaluators during the contested periods are conspicuously 
absent.  In order to effectively and successfully challenge the 
validity of an evaluation report, it is necessary to hear from all 
the members of the rating chain, not only for support but also for 
clarification/explanation.  The applicant has failed to provide 
necessary information from any rating officials on the contested 
reports.  Without the benefit of these statements, DPSID can only 
conclude that the reports are accurate as written. 

The applicant contends her EPR for the period ending 21 Mar 
12 should be void and removed from her records as the LOR received 
during the period is no longer in her PIF.  The LOR may have since 
been removed but it does not mean it was never issued nor does it 
mean it was not valid for mention on the contested EPR.  LORs for 
Technical Sergeants (TSgt, E-6) and below are never filed in any 
permanent record; rather they are only a temporary part of a 
record until the commander trusts that it has served its purpose, 
then it is removed.  Therefore, the mention of the contested LOR 
was within the evaluator’s authority.  Evaluators are obligated to 
consider such incidents, their significance, and the frequency 
with which they occurred in assessing performance and potential.  
AFI 36-2406, Officer and Enlisted Evaluation Systems, paragraph 
1.3.1, states “Evaluators are strongly encouraged to comment in 
performance reports on misconduct that reflects a disregard of the 
law, whether civil law or the Uniform Code of Military Justice 
(UCMJ), or when adverse actions such as LORs, admonishment or 
counseling, or placement on the control roster have been taken.”  
Based upon the presumed sufficiency of the LOR and no proof the 
LOR was ever removed or set-aside, DPSID concludes that its 
mention on the contested report was proper and IAW all applicable 
Air Force policies and procedures.  Consequently, DPSID finds this 
element of the applicant’s appeal to be without merit.

In regards to the applicant’s request to remove the 2 Feb 13 EPR, 
she filed an ERAB on 27 Aug 13.  The ERAB appeal case should be 
resolved prior to filing an application to the Board concerning 
the same issue.  

A complete copy of the 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 28 Nov 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 not exhausted all remedies provided by 
existing law or regulations for the EPR ending 2 Feb 13.  In this 
respect, 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.  The 
Air Force Office of Primary Responsibility (OPR) has reviewed this 
application and indicated the EPR ending 2 Feb 13 EPR is pending 
review by the ERAB.  In view of this, we find this portion of her 
request is not ripe for adjudication at this level as there exists 
a subordinate level of appeal that has not first been depleted.  

2.  The application was timely filed.

3.  Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to 
demonstrate the existence of error or injustice to warrant 
removing the applicant’s EPR ending 21 Mar 12.  We took notice of 
the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of the 
case; however, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of the 
Air Force OPR and adopt its rationale as the basis for our 
conclusion that the applicant has failed to sustain her burden of 
proof that she has been the victim of an error or injustice.  
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 issues 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 an 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 the application.


The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket Number 
BC-2013-05449 in Executive Session on 20 Jan 15 under the 
provisions of AFI 36-2603:

	 , Panel Chair
	 , Member
	 , Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

	Exhibit A.  DD Forms 149, dated 4 Nov 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 12 Nov 14.
	Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 28 Nov 14.