RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-00092
		COUNSEL: NONE
				HEARING DESIRED: YES

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

1.  His AF Form 911, Enlisted Performance Report (MSgt thru 
CMSgt), rendered for the period 20 Aug 09 thru 21 Jan 10, be 
declared void and removed from his records. 

2.  He be granted supplemental promotion consideration to the 
grade of Senior Master Sergeant (SMSgt) for the 11E8 cycle.

3.  He be awarded the Meritorious Service Medal (MSM) 

4.  By letter dated 5 Nov 13, the applicant amended his request 
to include removing the control roster action from his record. 

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

His EPR was accomplished with malice and callousness.  He was 
rated on personal bias and events that occurred outside the 
reporting period.  During the reporting period he was treated 
unfairly; not given performance feedback, nor afforded the same 
treatment as his peers, and was sexually harassed by his rater.

He was informed by his rater that the commander had made a 
mistake and he “did not deserve to be a MSgt anymore.”  This 
confirmed his beliefs that his Air Force career would be shaped 
on the basis of a supervisor who cancelled his assignment, let 
it be known he did not deserve his current rank, and informed 
him that he would never be promoted.

He was the only Senior Noncommissioned Officer (SNCO) within the 
squadron that was not rated by their flight commander.  
Selecting a rater outside of his flight was an isolated act that 
resulted in an equitable reporting period.  

He never received performance feedback during the reporting 
period, even after requesting it from his rater.  His first 
sergeant was a witness to the lack of supervision he received.  

His rater pressured and intimidated him to check the “yes” block 
in section XII, Ratee’s Acknowledgement of the contested EPR.  
His rater made it clear that he would be upset if he did not 
check the “yes” block.  He was bullied into signing the form as 
a new threat of his PCS orders being cancelled looming over his 
head.  He feared his rater would call the Air Force Personnel 
Center (AFPC) and have his assignment cancelled for a second 
time.

In Dec 09, in the presence of his peers, co-workers and 
contractors, his rater referred to him as “gay and a rump 
ranger” during a Government Formal Inspection.  He could not 
file a complaint because his rater was writing his EPR and he 
feared that if he complained about the harassment, he would lose 
his assignment.  Upon his PCS to Scott Air Force Base (SAFB), 
Illinois, he filed a complaint with the Equal Opportunity (EO) 
office. 

The contested EPR was never forwarded to the 97th Air Mobility 
Wing Command Chief Master Sergeant (97 AMW/CCM) for review.  
Upon learning of this, the CCM instituted a policy whereby all 
SNCO EPRs would be routed through him to ensure consistency and 
fairness across the wing.  His EPR was kept from the wing 
leadership to prevent any questions regarding its validity. 

On 11 Mar 11, his former first sergeant stated that Air Force 
standards were applied to whom the leadership saw fit, not 
consistently or in a fair manner within the squadron.  This 
culture was set from the top down as the squadron commander 
would visit the personal homes of the enlisted personal to watch 
football and socialize at non-squadron events.  The stories that 
followed these events left him with the impression that they 
were more than just an office get together to enjoy a ball game.  
It was more like a fraternity and the rules did not apply to 
them as long as the mission was completed.  He was not part of 
this fraternity; therefore, he was singled out, treated unjustly 
and punished for being viewed as a “fast burner.”  His success 
led many of his leaders to believe he was not worthy of the 
success because he had not “done his time.”  His personal 
achievements added tension to his working relationship with his 
rater.  This jealously led to resentment and hostility, which in 
turn directed an unfair rating that was not based on the 
specified time period but on a disagreeable long-standing 
relationship. 

One of the SNCO’s involved who does not have a flying background 
was the only one willing to write down what happened.  He 
referred to the handling of this situation as the “good ole boy 
system.”  He saw how unprofessional the others handled the 
situation and stated that is why he left the first sergeant 
career field.  The actions of his leadership during this time 
were malicious and calculated.  He was rated on a personal bias 
due to events that occurred outside the reporting period, not 
given the required performance feedback; verbally harassed for 
months; and his EPR was kept within the small leadership circle 
in the squadron in an effort to prevent any questions from their 
respective superiors.  This injustice is the exact reason this 
EPR should be voided and removed from his record.

In support of his appeal, the applicant’s provides a personal 
statement, copies of emails, memorandums for record, 
photographs, and various other documents associated with his 
request. 

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant is currently serving on active duty in the grade 
of master sergeant (E-7).  

On 17 Aug 09, the applicant received a Letter of Reprimand (LOR) 
for having an inappropriate relationship with an Airman and his 
commander initiated control roster action.  On 20 Aug 09, the 
commander determined the applicant engaged in the conduct as 
noted in the LOR and concluded the LOR was the appropriate 
course of action in his case.  In addition, the commander 
notified the applicant of his intent to establish an Unfavorable 
Information File (UIF) and to file the LOR in his UIF.  The 
commander placed him on the control roster on 20 Aug 09 and 
removed him from the control roster on or about 22 Jan 10.  

On 15 Feb 13, the Board considered and denied a similar request 
to remove all actions caused by his placement of the control 
roster and that a different EPR ending 19 Aug 09 be declared 
void and removed from his records.  For an accounting of the 
facts and circumstances surrounding the applicant’s request, 
and, the rationale of the earlier decision by the Board, see the 
Record of Proceedings at Exhibit B.

In a letter dated 14 Jun 13, the applicant provided a letter 
from AFPC/DPLAT5, dated 28 Sep 12 that was previously considered 
by the Board on 15 Feb 13. 

The following is a resume of his EPR ratings:

RATING PERIOD					PROMOTION RECOMMENDATION:

30 Sep 13				5
30 Sep 12				5
30 Mar 12				5
31 Aug 11				5
21 Jan 11				5
*21 Jan 10				4

*Contested EPR

The MSM was established by Executive Order 11448 on 16 Jan 69.  
This award may be awarded to any member of the Armed Forces of 
the United States who distinguished themselves by either 
outstanding achievement or meritorious service to the United 
States.  The level of achievement or service is less than that 
required for the Legion of Merit (LOM).

The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are 
contained in the letters prepared by the appropriate offices of 
the Air Force, which are attached at Exhibits C through E. 

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPSID recommends denial of the applicant’s request to void 
and remove the contested EPR.  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.  It is noteworthy to mention that this is 
the applicant’s third attempt to have three separate EPRs voided 
from his record, all of which he uses the same argument of 
reports being accomplished with malice and callousness and rated 
on performance outside of each inclusive period.

AFI 36-2401, Correcting Officer and Enlisted Evaluation Systems, 
states that in worker-supervisor relationships, some 
disagreements are likely to occur since a worker must abide by a 
supervisor’s policies and decisions.  Personal who do not 
perform at expected standards or require close supervision may 
believe that an evaluator is personally biased; however, the 
conflict generated by this personal attention is usually 
professional rather than personal.  

To convince the Board that an evaluator was unfavorably biased, 
specific examples of the conflict or bias must be cited and 
provide firsthand evidence that clearly shows how the conflict 
prevented the evaluator from preparing a fair and accurate 
report.  

A personal opinion statement is not firsthand evidence that 
proves the applicant was treated unfairly or with bias.  In 
addition, no statements from the evaluators on record were 
provided supporting any of the applicant’s claims.  Without the 
benefit of these statements, DPSID can only conclude that the 
EPR is accurate as written.  The applicant provided e-mail 
correspondence from another military member; however, that 
member was not in his rating chain, nor assigned any specific 
responsibility of supervision over the applicant.  The email is 
based solely on personal opinion and is unable to be validated, 
as there is no signature authentication present, or 
correspondence to support the applicant’s contention.

AFI 36-2401, states that only members in the rating chain can 
confirm if counseling was provided.  While current Air Force 
policy requires performance feedback for personnel, a direct 
correlation between information provided during feedback 
sessions and the assessments on evaluation reports does not 
necessarily exist.  There may be occasions when feedback was not 
provided during a reporting period; however, a lack of 
counseling or feedback, by itself, is not sufficient to 
challenge the accuracy or unjustness of a report.  Evaluators 
must confirm they did not provide counseling or feedback, and 
that this directly resulted in an unfair evaluation.  If a 
perceived feeling of coercion existed due to marking “yes” on 
the evaluation, clear evidence must exist proving that the 
superior violated the evaluator’s rating rights.  In this case, 
no such evidence has been provided; only a personal opinion by 
the applicant as he believes them to be true and therefore, the 
applicant’s claim lacks collaboration that he was rated 
unfairly.  

He filed a claim with the 375 AMW/EO office.  However, the 
findings in his allegations were not-substantiated per the 
guidance of the 375 AMW/Staff Judge Advocate (SJA) and the wing 
commander at the time.  Without a validated EO claim by either 
the EO office or the SJA, there is no evidence provided by the 
applicant that harassment occurred.  Though a claim of 
harassment is taken very seriously in the Air Force, there 
appears to be insufficient proof to substantiate these incidents 
occurred.

He claims he was rated with a personal bias from events outside 
of the rating period and leadership of the 97 Training Squadron 
(97 TRS) was malicious and with a “fraternity” mindset.  He also 
claims a continuous abuse of power and manipulation of 
regulations and standards creating an environment where no one 
could have received a fair and just rating.  What he fails to 
realize is his punishment for having an inappropriate 
relationship with a subordinate could have resulted in a much 
more serious punishment, such as a court-martial or a non-
judicial punishment action; but his unit chose to give him a 
LOR, and a Control Roster instead, a much lesser administrative 
action.  Not only did they show leniency and favor towards the 
applicant, they also chose to give him a command-directed EPR 
showing significant improvement and allowing him to PCS.  

If the applicant believed he was the victim of an unfair and 
bias report, and that his report may negatively influence future 
promotion/career opportunities, he should have initiated an 
Inspector General (IG) complaint.  The applicant has failed to 
provide any evidence that he pursued any of these actions.  
Moreover, a final review of the contested evaluation was 
accomplished by the additional rater and a subsequent agreement 
by the reviewer/commander serves as a final “check and balance” 
in order to ensure that the report was given a fair and precise 
consideration in accordance with the established intent of the 
current Officer and Enlisted Evaluation System in place.  

It is determined that this report was accomplished in direct 
accordance with all applicable guidelines and regulations.  Once 
a report is accepted for file, only strong evidence warrants 
correction or removal from an individual’s record.  The burden 
of proof is on the applicant.  He has not substantiated the 
contested report was not rendered in good faith by all 
evaluators based on the knowledge available at the time.  

DPSID recommends denial of the applicant’s request for award of 
the MSM.  After a thorough review of the applicant’s records, 
DPSID was unable to verify award of the MSM for the period from 
17 Sep 05 through 19 Aug 09.  The applicant provided a proposed 
citation for a MSM; however, he did not provide, nor were they 
able to locate a DÉCOR 6 for award of the MSM, a signed 
narrative, or any other documentation to substantiate he was 
submitted for award of the MSM.  The proposed citation he 
provided does not substantiate a recommendation was placed into 
official channels.  

AFI 36-2803, The Air Force Awards and Decorations Program states 
“Do not award or present a decoration to any person whose entire 
service for the period covered by the decoration has not been 
honorable.”  In addition, “No individual is automatically 
entitled to an award upon completion of an operational Temporary 
Duty (TDY) or departure for an assignment.”

The complete DPSID evaluations are at Exhibits C and D.

DPSOE recommends denial of the applicant’s request for 
supplemental promotion consideration to the grade of SMSgt for 
promotion cycle 11E8.  AFI 36-2502, Airman Promotion/Demotion 
Programs states “A member will not normally be granted 
supplemental consideration if the error or omission appeared on 
his Data Verification Record (DVR) or in the Unit Personnel 
Record Group (UPRG) and the individual did not take appropriate 
corrective or follow-up action before the original board 
convened.”  This policy is to reduce the number of “after the 
fact” changes that are initiated in an effort to get a second 
opportunity for promotion.  The contested EPR closed out 21 Jan 
10; however, the applicant did not file an appeal until 24 Dec 
12.  The results for the 11E8 promotion cycle were released on 
10 Mar 11.

The complete DPSOE evaluation is at Exhibit E.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

His claim of sexual harassment was not taken seriously because 
it was a male on male incident and prior to the Lackland Air 
Force Base, Texas scandal.  Had he been a female the situation 
would have been corrected.  He filed an EO complaint; however, 
the 375 AMW/EO office bungled the investigation by delaying 
questioning of those involved.  The personnel who investigated 
the harassment were too scared to come forward because the 
complaint involved a Chief Master Sergeant (CMSgt).  He was 
called “gay, homosexual, and a rump ranger” by a CMSgt; however, 
the Air Force turned a blind eye.

His rater and additional rater were covering up the fact that 
they manipulated his assignment to SAFB.  This fact was verified 
by AFPC/DPALT5 and his functional manager.  His rater was not 
going to admit to doing anything wrong and there was no unbiased 
member to check the report.  Based on this, he provided the next 
best insight into the squadron leadership, his first sergeant 
who stated that he was caught up in the “good ole boy” system.

AFPC/DPSID stated that he should consider himself lucky.  Since 
he was not part of the 97 TRS leadership, he is not qualified to 
make such statements.  His comments will likely paint an 
unwarranted picture in the minds of the Board members and could 
taint their decision process.  DPSID stated that his EPR, LOR 
and control roster actions were his “punishment;” however, these 
administrative actions as defined by AFI are not “punishment,” 
they are considered administrative tools.   According to DPSID, 
he was given a control roster as “punishment;” therefore, he 
requests the Board remove all actions associated with the 
control roster as this would constitute an improper use of a 
control roster according to AFI 36-2907, Unfavorable Information 
File.

He filed several IG complaints and had to wait several months to 
get away from his rater; therefore, the IG was not interested in 
his complaint.  He contacted the 375 AMW/IG and Air Mobility 
Command/IG (AMC/IG) for assistance regarding the abuse and 
manipulation he was subjected to while stationed at Altus Air 
Force Base, Oklahoma.  Once the IG learns your complaint is 
dealing with an EPR, they defer or dismiss your complaint 
stating they there are other avenues for EPRs.  Both IG offices 
were not interested in assisting him with his EPR issues. 

The contested EPR was not an opportunity to document improved 
performance, but a manipulation of the Air Force assignment 
system between his unit and AMC.  In Oct 09, AMC/A3 promised he 
would be given another assignment to SAFB in Feb 10, as soon as 
he came off the control roster and had another EPR.  This 
validates that AMC/A3T was dictating to AFPC, along with his 
unit to determine what assignment he would receive.  This action 
goes against AFI 36-2110, Assignments and was determined to be 
an “inappropriate manipulation” by his functional manager.  The 
administrative actions were never about his performance, but 
tools used by his unit, dictated by AMC, to manipulate Air Force 
systems and place certain members in specific assignments.

He has provided enough evidentiary support to validate 
investigating his claims beyond the surface level.  He has 
provided documented support and written statements from 
supervisors that were in his chain of command, who corroborated 
his claim of manipulation.  The working environment within the 
97 TRS was filled with harassment, bias, and unethical 
practices.

His EPR, LOR and control roster actions were used as 
“punishment”, which validates and upholds his contention that he 
was given these administrative actions as punishment and a means 
to manipulate the Air Force assignment system, not a record of 
performance 

The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, are at 
Exhibits G and H.

_________________________________________________________________

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's complete submission was thoroughly reviewed and his 
contentions were duly noted; however, we are not persuaded that 
corrective action is warranted in this case.  We note that the 
applicant asserts that the contested EPR was not an opportunity 
to document his performance, rather a manipulation of the Air 
Force assignment system and therefore, it should be removed.  
However, other than his own assertions, we have not seen 
sufficient evidence by the applicant which would lead us to 
believe the rater abused his discretionary authority or was 
unable to render an accurate, unbiased evaluation of his 
performance, or that the contested report was based on factors 
other than his duty performance during the contested rating 
period.  Therefore, we find no basis to recommend favorable 
action on the applicant’s request that his EPR 21 Jan 10 be 
voided and removed from his records.  Regarding his request for 
supplemental promotion consideration to the grade of SMSgt, 
since we find no error with the contested report, no basis 
exists upon which to direct supplemental promotion consideration 
for the 11E8 cycle.  With respect to the applicant’s request for 
award of the MSM, although he provides a proposed citation, as 
noted by DPSID, the applicant has failed to provide 
documentation to substantiate he was ever recommended for the 
MSM.  Therefore we conclude that the applicant's request for 
award of the MSM is not adequately supported in that he has not 
provided sufficient evidence such as a Decor6 verifying that he 
was recommended for the MSM and that the recommendation was 
placed in official channels.  Additionally, we note in the 
applicant’s rebuttal that he requests that the control roster 
actions he received be removed from his records.  However, the 
applicant has not provided substantial evidence which would lead 
us to believe that the administrative actions taken by his 
commander were beyond his scope of authority, that he abused his 
discretionary authority in taking those actions, or that the 
actions taken were precipitated by anything other than the 
applicant's own conduct.  As such, we do not find his 
assertions, in and by themselves, sufficiently persuasive in 
this matter.  Therefore, we agree with the opinions and 
recommendations of the Air Force offices of primary 
responsibility and adopt their rationale as the basis for our 
conclusion that the applicant has failed to sustain his burden 
of proof that he has been the victim of an error or injustice.  
In view of the foregoing, and in the absence of sufficient 
evidence to the contrary, we find no basis to recommend granting 
any of 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 that the evidence presented did not 
demonstrate the existence of material 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 this application.

_________________________________________________________________

The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket 
Number BC-2012-00092 in Executive Session on 9 Jan 2014, under 
the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

				Panel Chair
				Member
				Member

?
The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket 
Number BC-2012-00092 was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 24 Dec 12, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant’s Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPSID, dated 21 Jun 13.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPSID, dated 23 Aug 13.
   Exhibit E.  Letter, AFPC/DPSOE, dated 13 Sep 13.
   Exhibit F.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 29 Oct 13.
   Exhibit G.  Letter, Applicant, dated 5 Nov 13, w/atchs.




							
							Panel Chair


10