RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2013-01902
		COUNSEL:  NONE
		HEARING DESIRED: YES

	 

________________________________________________________________
_

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) with a closeout date of 
17 Apr 10 be voided and removed from his records.

________________________________________________________________
_

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

1. His contested EPR was not written by his direct supervisor.  
In addition, the Chief who authored the report did not have 
enough days of supervision.  He provides documentation that 
clearly substantiates these facts, along with providing a 
subsequent report that shows a malicious intent by the Chief; 
who also violated the governing instructions.  

2. He appealed to the Evaluation Reports and Appeals Board 
(ERAB) on 9 Nov 12; however, his request was denied.  His 
original appeal package not only contested an unfair and wrong 
doings by someone who erroneously wrote the contested report, 
but it also outlined insufficient days of supervision.  The ERAB 
stated, “an applicant requesting relief must provide strong 
evidence to overcome the report’s presumed validity.”  He 
provides clear, concise, and strong evidence proving multiple 
violations of the governing instructions.  

In support of his request, the applicant provides a copy of the 
Timeline of Events and a copy of his ERAB appeals memorandum.

His complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. 

________________________________________________________________
_

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant is currently serving on active duty in the Regular 
Air Force in the grade of technical sergeant.

	CLOSE OUT DATE	OVERALL PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT
			
	17 Apr 09	5
*	17 Apr 10	4
	29 Dec 10	5
	29 Dec 11	5
	29 Dec 12	5
	 9 Sep 13	5

*Contested Report

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

________________________________________________________________
_

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

1. AFPC/DPSID recommends denial.  The applicant believes that 
after subtracting the days he was on temporary duty (TDY) and 
loaned to another duty section that the rater would not have 
obtained the minimum required supervision of 120 days.  However, 
after subtracting the 41 days of TDY, the evaluator who signed 
the report did have more than the 120 days of required 
supervision.  The deduction does not include periods of loan to 
another section or organization when authorities do not change 
the rater or publish TDY orders.  

2. The applicant contends that an initial feedback was not 
accomplished within the recommended timeframe of 60 days nor was 
the midterm feedback session accomplished midway between the 
dates of supervision and the projected close out date; however, 
both sessions were conducted and the applicant was informed of 
his deficiencies.  According to the applicant’s own admission, 
the Chief was not assigned as his supervisor until after his 
departure for Non-Commissioned Officers Academy (NCOA) and his 
supervision was backdated to the Chief’s date arrived station on 
10 Aug 09.  Assuming the applicant returned to work the day 
after his graduation on 22 Oct 09, the Chief’s feedback session 
was conducted 61 days later.  A report is not erroneous or 
unfair because the applicant believes it contributed to a lack 
of counseling or feedback.  

3. They do not believe the applicant has provided sufficient 
substantiating documentation or evidence to prove his assertions 
that the contested evaluation was rendered unfairly or unjustly.  
He has merely offered his view of events as he believes them to 
be true.  Furthermore, negative factors do not need to be 
present or even exist in order to receive a “4” or an “Above 
Average” rating, as this clearly signifies performing “Above” 
the established Air Force standard.  

4. The applicant provided supporting memorandums from 
individuals outside of his rating chain; however, while those 
individuals are entitled to their opinion of the applicant’s 
duty performance and the events occurring around the time of 
when the EPR was rendered, we do not believe they were in a 
better position to evaluate his duty performance than those who 
were specifically assigned that responsibility.  The applicant 
does not provide information from the rating officials on the 
contested report.

The complete DPSID evaluation is at Exhibit C.

________________________________________________________________
_

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

In a 5-page brief, the applicant makes the following rebuttal:

	a. He implores the Board to thoroughly review all facts 
presented in his case.  He has provided an immeasurable amount 
of evidence of multiple wrong and unjust occurrences.  He also 
reiterates the fact that he provides clear and concise proof 
that multiple violations of the governing instructions occurred.  

	b. AFPC/DPSID’s advisory opinion states “The applicant 
believes that after subtraction of his TDY to the NCO Academy 
and the time he was loaned out to another section, the rater on 
the contested evaluation did not obtain the minimum required 
supervision of 120 days.”  In his original application, there is 
substantial evidence that shows the Chief did not have enough 
days of supervision to close out a report on him.  The Chief and 
the Director had a malevolent demeanor towards his career.  He 
provides a timeline that proves the Chief start date began on 
31 Aug 09.  The Chief sent an email to him on 21 Sep 09 stating 
he was assigned as his supervisor effective 10 Aug 09.  

	c. DPSID’s advisory opinion fails to admit that the Chief 
violated the governing instructions by not performing his 
initial feedback within the required first 60 days of 
supervision.  AFI 36-2406, Officer and Enlisted Evaluation 
Systems, note 1, states “The rater must conduct the initial 
feedback session within the first 60 days he or she initially 
begins supervision.  This will be the ratee’s only initial 
feedback until they have a change or reporting official.”  
Instead, the advisory opinion attempts to justify and validate 
that at least some sort of feedback occurred.  It is his 
obligation to highlight significant negative and questionable 
trends that transpired during the time period in question.  The 
instruction notes to “deduct all periods of 30 days or more 
consecutive calendar days during which the rate or the rater was 
TDY, on leave, in patient status, in classroom training (such as 
attending PME at home station),” leaving only 103 days of 
supervision which clearly does not meet the required days later.  

	d. DPSID attempts to justify receiving a “4” or an “Above 
Average” rating as still performing “Above” the established Air 
Force standard.  However, to his dismay, this is inexcusable 
because he has provided plenty of evidence that highlights 
significant and multiple negative trends by the Chief.

	e. He provides a letter from the Chief of Civilian 
Requirements Division who was his additional rater of the 
subsequent evaluation in which the Chief continued to perform 
malicious acts to hinder his career and who also blatantly 
changed a rating by another civilian without her knowledge.  
Further, he contests the statement provided in the DPSID 
advisory opinion that states “In order to effectively challenge 
an evaluation, it is necessary to hear from all members of the 
rating chain-not only for support but also for 
clarification/explanation,” because the individuals who signed 
the contested EPR are directly involved in a derogatory manner.

	f. Additionally, DPSID states there is “lack of 
corroborating and compelling evidence” and “to grant relief 
would be contrary to established Air Force instructions in that 
the evaluation is presumed accurate at the time it is 
accomplished and placed in the official military personnel 
record.  This would equally be an injustice to the entire Air 
Force Evaluation System and circumvent the evaluators which were 
specifically given the responsibility to evaluate the applicant 
during this period.”  He references the Air Force Pamphlet and 
Instructions that both afford the military member the right to 
contest, pursue and provide a burden of proof that the member 
was a victim of error or injustice.

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

________________________________________________________________
_

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 error or injustice.  After reviewing 
all of the evidence provided, we are not persuaded that the 
contested report is or that its contents violate governing 
directives.  We have noted the applicant’s contentions concerning 
the contested report and his allegations of malicious intent by 
his rater in order to hinder his career.  However, while the 
applicant may believe this is the case, there is nothing in the 
evidence provided which would lead us to believe that the EPR in 
question was prepared with any motivation on the part of the 
evaluators other than to report their assessment of the 
applicant’s performance.  .  Therefore, we agree with the opinion 
and recommendation of the Air Force office of primary 
responsibility and adopt its rationale as the basis for our 
conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of an error 
or injustice.  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 issue 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-2013-01902 in Executive Session on 16 Jan 14, under 
the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

	, Chair
	, Member
	, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 16 Apr 13, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPSID, dated 16 Sep 13.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 15 Oct 13.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, Applicant, dated 14 Nov 13, w/atchs.




                                   
                                   Chair








FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY – PRIVACY ACT OF 1974


FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY – PRIVACY ACT OF 1974
4


5