RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  99-00739
		INDEX CODE:  111.02

		COUNSEL:  None

		HEARING DESIRED:  No

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

The Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) rendered for the period 2 Aug 96 through 1 Aug 97 be declared void and removed from his records.

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He never received his two feedbacks for this EPR.  He was also in another squadron for six months out of the rating period.  While he was in the Honor Guard, he was referred to as the perfect example airman.

In support of his appeal, the applicant provided copies of his EPRs and four supporting statements.

Applicant’s complete submission is attached at Exhibit A.

________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant’s Total Active Federal Military Service Date (TAFMSD) was 2 Dec 93.

Applicant’s EPR profile follows:

            PERIOD ENDING          OVERALL EVALUATION

              1 Aug 95                     3
              1 Aug 96                     4
            * 1 Aug 97                     2 (Referral Report)

     * Contested EPR.

On 30 Jul 97, applicant was notified of his commander’s intent to impose nonjudicial punishment upon him for dereliction in the performance of his duties in that he willfully failed to refrain from removing his Personal Information Folder (PIF) from his Element Chief’s desk.

On 8 Aug 97, after consulting with counsel, applicant waived his right to a trial by court-martial, requested a personal appearance and submitted a written presentation.

On 15 Aug 97, he was found guilty by his commander who imposed the following punishment:  Reduction from the grade of senior airman to airman first class, which was suspended until 14 Feb 98, after which time it would be remitted without further action, unless sooner vacated; forfeiture of $250 pay a month for two months, which was suspended until 14 Feb 98, after which time it would be remitted without further action, unless sooner vacated; and, 45 days’ extra duty.

Applicant did appeal the punishment; however, there is no indication on the Article 15 whether his appeal was denied or whether it was filed in his Unfavorable Information File (UIF).

On 1 Dec 97, the applicant was discharged under the provisions of AFI 36‑3208 (Completion of Required Active Service) with an honorable characterization of service in the grade of senior airman with an RE code of 2X (First-term, second-term, or career airman considered but not selected for reenlistment under the Selective Reenlistment Program (SRP).  He was credited with four years of active service.

________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The XXXXXX, Inquiries/AFBCMR Section, AFPC/DPPPWB, reviewed this application and indicated that the first time the referral report would have affected the promotion process was cycle 98E5 to staff sergeant (promotions effective Sep 98 - Aug 99).  However, since it was a “referral” report, it would have rendered the applicant ineligible for promotion consideration, had be been on active duty for this cycle.  He was released from active duty on 1 Dec 97 before testing for the 98E5 cycle.  Should the Board grant his request, it would not affect the promotion process since he was not on active duty for the cycle affected by the EPR in question.

A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit C.

The XXXXX, Appeals & SSB Branch, AFPC/DPPPA, also reviewed this application and indicated that while the applicant contends that he did not receive his two feedbacks during the contested period, they note that the rater indicates in Section V (Rater’s Comments) that feedbacks were conducted on 25 Sep 96 and 6 Mar 97.  The applicant has provided no documentation to refute that counseling did not occur on these dates.  Regardless, AFI 36‑2403, paragraph 2.8, states that the ratee should “notify the rater and, if necessary, the rater’s rater when a required or requested feedback session does not take place.”  The applicant does not state whether he requested a feedback session from his rater nor does he state he notified the rater or the indorser when the required feedback session did not take place.  Regardless, AFI 36‑2403, paragraph 2-10, states, “A rater’s failure to conduct a required or requested feedback session does not by itself invalidate the EPR.”  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 and 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.  The member must also supply specific information about the unfair evaluation so the Board can make a reasoned judgment on the appeal.

The applicant also states he was assigned to another squadron for six months out of the rating period.  Again, he has provided no documentation to substantiate his claim.  It is possible the applicant could have been placed on loan from his squadron but without documentation to prove otherwise, DPPPA can only conclude the number of days of supervision is accurate.  Furthermore, the letters of support which the applicant provides are not germane to the report in question.  None of the testimonials he submits state the evaluators rated the applicant inaccurately nor is DPPPA convinced of their ability to more accurately assess applicant’s performance considering they were not the individuals charged with performing this responsibility.

While the applicant contends the contested EPR is inconsistent with previous performance, it is not reasonable to compare one report covering a certain period of time with another report covering a different period of time.  This does not allow for changes in the ratee’s performance and does not follow the intent of the governing regulation, AFI 36‑2403.  The EPR was designed to provide a rating for a specific period of time based on the performance noted during that period, not based on previous performance.  Air Force policy is that an evaluation report is accurate as written when it becomes a matter of record and to effectively challenge an EPR, it is necessary to hear from all the members of the rating chain—not only for support but to clarification/explanation.  The applicant has failed to provide any information/support from the rating chain on the contested EPR.  In the absence of information from evaluators, official substantiation of error or injustice from the Inspector General (IG) or Social Actions is appropriate, but not provided in this case.  It appears the report was accomplished in direct accordance with applicable regulations.  Based on the evidence provided, DPPPA recommends denial due to lack of merit.

A complete copy of their evaluation is attached at Exhibit D.

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Applicant reviewed the Air Force evaluations and stated, in part, that the EPR he is writing about was done on or about the date of 1 Aug 97; however, if this EPR was written on 1 Aug 97, then when he asked for a copy of all his EPRs in his military records, he questions why was this EPR not in his records.  He has copies of the first two and no more after that.  He got these copies on or about 10 Jul 97.  He wrote and told SAF/MIBR that he never received any of the feedbacks but he did find a copy of one he received on 25 Sep 96 for the EPR in question.  It reflects totally the opposite to a 2 EPR.  He thought he was in the Honor Guard during the second half of the evaluation period.  He was told after he got back from Honor Guard there was an EPR due on him and it would reflect the time he spent in the Honor Guard.  His rater did not take any of the accomplishments he made at the Honor Guard and reflect them on his EPR.  Furthermore, he never received the second feedback.  While SAF/MIBR also states the feedbacks were conducted on 25 Sep 96 and 6 Mar 97, he started the Honor Guard a week prior to the second EPR feedback date so he never received that feedback.

Applicant further states that he feels the EPR was given unjustly and not by his rater but by his XXXXX XXXXX.  He does not remember ever getting an initial feedback when his rater changed.  This entire EPR was unjustly given to him.  He was once told the ratee has to sign an EPR of a 2 or lower or a referral EPR; however, he never signed one.  Furthermore, the letters of support he provided state during the exact time this EPR was written that his XXXXX XXXXX was in the wrong not to reenlist him.  The whole fact that the letters were written during the EPR time is a perfect example of the fact that his XXXXX XXXXX has a vendetta against him and the EPR was unjustly written.  These letters are pertinent because of the fact that they reflect his actions during the time of that EPR and his XXXX XXXXX at the time did not care what they had to say and still gave him a 2 EPR.

Applicant’s complete response, with attachments, is attached at Exhibit F.

________________________________________________________________

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 probable error or injustice.  After a thorough review of the evidence of record and applicant’s submission, we are not persuaded that the report in question should be declared void and removed from his records.  His contentions are duly noted; however, we do not find these assertions, in and by themselves, sufficiently persuasive to override the rationale provided by the Air Force.  We therefore agree with the recommendations of the Air Force and adopt the rationale expressed as the basis for our decision that the applicant has failed to sustain his burden that he has suffered either an error or an injustice.  Therefore, we find no compelling basis to recommend granting the relief sought.

________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:

The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of probable 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 this application in Executive Session on 1 December 1999, under the provisions of Air Force Instruction 36‑2603:

The following documentary evidence was considered:

     Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 15 Mar 99, w/atchs.
     Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
     Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPWB, dated 9 Apr 99.
     Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPA, dated 13 May 99.
     Exhibit E.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 28 May 99.
     Exhibit F.  Letter fr applicant, dated 3 Jun 99,
                   w/atchs.