RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF: 			DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-02192

  						COUNSEL:  NONE

						HEARING DESIRED:  NO 



APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His Enlisted Performance Report (EPR), rendered for the period 
of 16 April 2009 through 15 April 2010, be removed from his 
record.


APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The EPR has a negative rating based on an inaccurate 
finding/claim.  The EPR does not meet AFI 36-2406 time 
requirements for feedback, review, comments and submission.

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


STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant is currently serving in the Regular Air Force in 
the grade of staff sergeant.

The applicant did file an appeal through the Evaluation Report 
Appeals Board (ERAB) under the provisions of AFI 36-2406, 
Officer and Enlisted Evaluation Systems, 15 April 2005 and AFI 
36-2401, Correcting Officer and Enlisted Evaluation Reports, 
10 March 2006; however, the ERAB denied the applicant’s request 
to void the report, but approved the minor correction to the 
number of days supervision.

The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are 
contained in the letter prepared by the Air Force office of 
primary responsibility (OPR), which is attached at Exhibit B.


AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPSID recommends denial.  DPSID states the applicant was 
arrested for DUI refusal and lost his base driving privileges 
for a year, which was also commented upon on the evaluation.  
The applicant provided documentation showing the charges were 
dropped for DUI refusal; however, after careful review of the 
court document provided, it appears the plea occurred on 
15 October 2009.  The applicant plead guilty to reckless 
driving, no contest to improper passing, and plead not guilty 
for DUI refusal.  Below the plea, the sentence of the court was 
as follows: total fine in the amount of $1,249 .00, 40 hours of 
community service, probation of 12 months, and was found guilty 
of a DUI.  Only the evaluators know how much an incident 
influenced the report.  IAW AFI 36-2406, paragraph 1.3.1 which 
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 Article 15, 
Letters of Reprimand, Admonishment, or Counseling, or placement 
on the Control Roster have been taken.  Therefore, they contend 
that the inclusion of the referral comment on the EPR was 
appropriate and within the evaluators authority to document 
given the incident in question.  They contend that the comment 
referencing the behavior and the punishment received on the 
contested referral EPR to be fair, accurate and IAW AFI 36-
2406 instructional guidance.

The applicant also claims lack of a feedback due to the rater 
being deployed at that time annotated on the evaluation.  The 
contested feedback date is 8 January 2010; however, the rater 
didn’t depart TDY until 10 January 2010.  The applicant further 
contends that his EPR does not meet AFI 36-2406 time 
requirements for feedback.  If the applicant was concerned about 
his lack of feedback, there were avenues to take to resolve the 
issue in advance.  Paragraph 2.6.3 states “Since the ratee 
shares the responsibility to ensure feedback sessions occur, a 
feedback notice is also sent to the ratee, through his or her 
unit, 30 days after sending the notice to the rater (for 
officers) or concurrently with the notice sent to the rater (for 
enlisted).”  In addition, paragraph 2.10 states: “while 
documented feedback sessions are required by this Instruction, 
they do not replace informal day-to-day feedback.  A rater’s 
failure to conduct a required or requested feedback session, or 
document the session on a PFW, will not, of itself, invalidate 
any subsequent performance report or (for officers) PRF.”  
Furthermore, IAW AFI 36-2401, paragraph Al.5.8, it 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. For example, if 
after a positive feedback session, an evaluator discovers 
serious problems, he or she must record the problems in the 
evaluation report even when it disagrees with the previous 
feedback.  There may be occasions when feedback was not provided 
during a reporting period.  Lack of counseling or feedback, by 
itself, is not sufficient to challenge the accuracy or justness 
of a report.  Evaluators must confirm they did not provide 
counseling or feedback, and that this directly resulted in an 
unfair evaluation.  You must also supply specific information 
about the unfair evaluation so the Board can make a reasoned 
judgment on the appeal.  Finally, every airman knows the 
existing standards for indebtedness, weight, fitness, etc.  Lack 
of counseling in these areas provides no valid basis for voiding 
a report.”  In this case, the applicant has not provided any 
relevant documents to prove this allegation.  They contend that 
this specific contention by the applicant is not in accordance 
with established Air Force policy and is thereof also without 
merit.

The applicant has provided insufficient documentation to prove 
his 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 has 
provided insufficient information from the rating officials on 
the contested report.  It appears the report was accomplished in 
direct accordance with all applicable Air Force policies and 
procedures.  Once a report is accepted for file, only strong 
evidence to the contrary should warrant correction or removal 
from an individual’s record and the burden of proof should be on 
the applicant.  Unfortunately, the applicant has not 
substantiated that the contested report was not rendered 
accurately and in good faith by all evaluators based on 
knowledge available at the time.

A complete copy of the AFPC/DPSID evaluation is at Exhibit B.


APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the 
applicant on 16 July 2015 for review and comment within 30 days 
(Exhibit C).  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.  
In spite of the applicant’s detailed and informative 
application, 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.  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-2014-02192 in Executive Session on 17 August 2015 
under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:


The following documentary evidence was considered:

	Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 28 May 2014, w/atchs.
	Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
	Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPSID, dated 1 July 2015.
	Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 16 July 2015.





4