RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2013-01918
		COUNSEL:  NONE
	HEARING DESIRED:  NO

________________________________________________________________
_

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

1.  His Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) rendered for the 
period 12 February 2009 through 11 February 2010 be removed from 
his record.

2.  The Air Force Good Conduct Medal (AFGCM) for the period 
3 December 2006 to 2 December 2009 be reinstated.

________________________________________________________________
_

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The contested report reflects a full mark down in section III – 
item 2 (Standards, Conduct, Character & Military Bearing) to 
“Does Not Meet”.  This was based upon the last statement in that 
section “Supervisory roles removed/received Letter of 
Reprimand/placed on UIF/Control Roster for alleged misconduct.”  
This statement reveals that there was no proof but accusation - 
whereby he was found to not be at fault.  This incident also 
caused the denial of the AFGCM for the period 3 December 2006 to 
2 December 2009.

In support of his request, the applicant provides the contested 
report and letter from the 690th NSS/CC dated 15 December 2009.

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

________________________________________________________________
_

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 27 December 
2000.

The applicant did not file an appeal through the Evaluation 
Reports Appeal Board (ERAB) under the provisions of AFI 36-2401, 
Correcting Officer and Enlisted Evaluation Reports.





EPR profile since 2004 reflects the following:

	PERIOD ENDING	EVALUATION OF POTENTIAL

		15 Jul 04		5
		25 Aug 05		5
		11 Feb 06		5
		11 Feb 07		5
		11 Feb 08		5
		11 Feb 09		5
	 * 11 Feb 10		3

* Contested report.

On 1 September 2010, the applicant was honorably discharged 
under the provisions of AFI 36-3208 (Completion of Required 
Active Service).  He served 9 years, 8 months and 5 days on 
active duty.

________________________________________________________________
_

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPSID recommends denial to remove the contested report from 
the applicant’s records.  DPSID states the applicant provided no 
evidence whatsoever within his case to show that the referral 
comment on the EPR was inaccurate or unjust; therefore, DPSID 
contends that the inclusion of the referral comment on the EPR 
was appropriate and within the evaluator’s authority to document 
given the incident.  Moreover, a final review of the contested 
evaluation was accomplished by the additional rater and a 
subsequent agreement by the reviewer/commander served as a final 
“check and balance” in order to ensure that the report was given 
a fair consideration in accordance with the established intent 
of the current Officer and Enlisted Evaluation System in place.

The applicant has provided absolutely no supporting 
documentation to prove his claim of not being at fault for the 
alleged accusation.  The applicant provided a one sentence 
comment claiming he was not at fault for an incident that 
occurred.  Based on the presumed legitimacy of the 
LOR/UIF/Control Roster action and absolutely no proof or 
supporting documentation that it has ever been removed, DPSID 
find that the mention of it in the contested evaluation to be 
fair and appropriate and in accordance with all applicable Air 
Force instructional guidance and procedures; as such, there is 
no basis in which they can support removal of the contested 
report.







Air Force policy is that an evaluation report is accurate as 
written when it becomes a matter of record.  It is considered to 
represent the rating chain’s best judgment at the time it is 
rendered.  Statements from all the evaluators during the 
contested period 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.  Without benefit of these statements, and 
based on the evidence provided they can only conclude that the 
report is accurate as written.  The report was accomplished in 
direct accordance with all applicable Air Force policies and 
procedures.

The DPSID complete evaluation is at Exhibit C.

AFPC/DPSID recommends denial of the AFGCM.  The AFGCM was 
authorized by the Secretary of the Air Force on 1 June 1963.  
The medal is awarded to enlisted personnel during a three-year 
period of active military service or for a one-year period of 
service during a time of war.  Airmen awarded this medal must 
have had character and efficiency ratings of excellent or higher 
throughout the qualifying period.  In accordance with Executive 
Order 8809, amended by Executive Order 9323, the AFGCM may also 
be awarded to service members who complete more than one year 
but less than three years of Total Active Federal Military 
Service if the AFGCM has not been previously awarded.

The applicant has not shown the existence of an error or 
injustice.  The applicant has not provided evidence to support 
his assertion that he was found not in fault in relation to the 
incident in question.  However, even if the Board were to grant 
the request in relation to the EPR, the LOR would remain; the 
referral for the EPR was generated by the LOR, in part, and not 
the other way around.  The decision to deny award of the AFGCM 
resides with the commander, and without significant, convincing 
evidence to the contrary the denial should stand.  They have not 
been provided any justification to overrule the commander in the 
exercise of his prerogative under Air Force Instruction 36-2803; 
the commander found the applicant had not performed in an 
exemplary manner; removal of the EPR, or even the LOR, does not 
negate his decision.

The DPSID complete evaluation is at Exhibit D.

________________________________________________________________
_









APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

On 15 October 2013, a copy of the Air Force evaluation was 
forwarded to the applicant for review and response 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 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.  While the 
applicant contends that the contested report rendered for the 
period 12 February 2009 through 11 February 2010 invalidates 
itself by the mention of an alleged incident to which he 
received an LOR/UIF and placed on a control roster, we do not 
find the documentation presented sufficient to conclude the 
contested report is an inaccurate assessment of his performance 
or that it was inappropriately rendered.  Regarding the AFGCM, 
the commander found the applicant did not perform in an 
exemplary manner during his enlisted status for award of the 
AFGCM.  The applicant's complete submission was thoroughly 
reviewed and his contentions were duly noted.  However, we do 
not find the applicant’s assertions and the documentation 
presented in support of his appeal sufficiently persuasive to 
override the rationale provided by the Air Force offices of 
primary responsibility (OPRs).  Therefore, in the absence of 
evidence to the contrary, we find no basis to recommend granting 
the relief sought in this application.

________________________________________________________________
_

THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:

The applicant be notified the evidence presented did not 
demonstrate the existence of an 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-2013-01918 in Executive Session on 7 January 2014, 
under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:


The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket 
Number BC-2013-01918 was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 17 April 2013, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant’s Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPSID, dated 23 August 2013.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPSID, dated 16 September 2013.
   Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 15 October 2013.









5