RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF: 			DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-01675

						COUNSEL:  NONE

						HEARING DESIRED:  NO 



APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

Her Enlisted Performance Report (EPR), rendered for the period 
of 14 Sep 12 through 17 May 13, be declared void or corrected to 
the original close out date.


APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

She was given a referral EPR due to failing a Fitness Assessment 
(FA) in May 2013.  She retook the FA again in July 2013 and 
passed.  Her annual EPR did not close out until Sep 2013.  
However, her rater at the time gave her an early EPR and made it 
a referral due to failing a FA during the rating period.  

This is in contradiction to the Air Force Instruction.  Her 
rater at the time agreed to make a statement that this report 
was given in error.  

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


STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant is currently serving the in the Regular Air Force 
in the grade of Technical Sergeant (E-6).

Applicant’s EPR closeout profile for the last four years is as 
follows:

		CLOSEOUT	RATING

		 13 Sep 10     2 
		 13 Sep 11     5
		 13 Sep 12     5
	          * 17 May 13     4   Directed by Commander
		  1 Nov 13     5   Directed by same Commander
		 30 Nov 14     5
	          
	* Contested EPR
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 Evaluations Report Appeals Board (ERAB) under the 
provisions of AFI 36-2406, Officer and Enlisted Evaluation 
Systems, 3 Jan 13; however, the ERAB determined it was not a 
valid reason to void a report due to the fact a “Directed by 
Commander” reason is appropriate and within the commander’s 
discretion.  There is insufficient documentation to prove her 
assertions that the contested evaluation was rendered 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.  To effectively 
challenge an evaluation, it is necessary to hear from all the 
members of the rating chain-not only for support, but also for 
clarification/explanation.  The applicant failed her fitness 
assessment during the reporting period.  The commander felt 
it was appropriate to document the failed fitness assessment 
closing out the report on 17 May 2013 with the reason for the 
report being "Directed by Commander".  In accordance 
with (IAW) AFI 36-2406, Table 3.7., Rule 5, "An evaluation is 
necessary to document unsatisfactory or marginal duty 
performance or conduct."  The applicant has provided 
insufficient supporting documentation to prove the EPR was not 
rendered fairly based on the failed fitness assessment.

AFI 36-2905, Fitness Program, effective 1 Jul 10,  states "It 
is every Airman's responsibility to maintain the standards set 
forth in this AFI 365 days a year.  Being physically fit 
allows you to properly support the Air Force mission.  The goal 
of the Fitness Program (FP) is to motivate all members to 
participate in a year-round physical conditioning program that 
emphasizes total fitness, to include proper aerobic 
conditioning, strength/flexibility training, and healthy 
eating."  It was the applicant's responsibility to ensure 
that she was properly prepared for her fitness assessments.  
Therefore to change or void this evaluation would be an 
injustice to other Airman who have consulted with the medical 
community and received the proper medical profiles regarding 
the fitness program or the other Airman which have met the 
regulatory AF requirements.

Regarding the applicant's request to have the report corrected 
to the original annual close out date, the applicant has made a 
prohibited request by failing to provide a re-accomplished EPR, 
along with signed memorandums of support/justification from the 
original evaluators at the time.  Although the AFBCMR is not 
governed by AFI 36-2406, we would request the AFBCMR honor the 
guidance set for an evaluation appeal within the governing 
directives.  The governing directive states that appeals 
requesting to re-accomplish an evaluation will not be 
considered without the applicant furnishing a new evaluation.  
It is therefore our recommendation that, for this reason alone, 
the AFBCMR reject the applicant's request to amend or change 
the overall rating.  IAW AFI 36-2406, paragraph 10.2.4, the 
Board will not consider nor approve requests to change an 
evaluators rating or comments if the evaluator does not support 
the change.  We urge the AFBCMR to not circumvent the 
evaluators which bear the responsibility of making a fair and 
equitable assessment at the time the report was written.

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 28 Apr 15, 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.  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 office of primary responsibility 
(OPR) and adopt its rationale as the basis for our conclusion 
the applicant has not been the victim of an error of injustice.  
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-2014-01675 in Executive Session on 11 Jun 15, under 
the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket 
Number BC-2014-01675 was considered:

	Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 14 Apr 14, w/atchs.
	Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
	Exhibit C.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPSID, dated 18 Apr 15.
	Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 28 Apr 15.