RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  01-00153
		INDEX CODE:  111.02

		COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED:  NO

__________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

The Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) rendered for the period 29 Oct 96 through 28 Oct 97 be declared void and removed from his records.

__________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He was not given a fair evaluation and rating by his rating chain.  He was not asked to provide a speak-up sheet prior to his EPR being started as is common practice for all personnel in their flight.  When he did supply his speak-up sheet, important temporary duty (TDY) information was not used.  The rater had only 69 days of actual supervision and did not meet the criteria for 120 days of supervision to justify writing an EPR.  He feels this was one of the best years of his contributions and performance at Travis AFB yet he received a lower rating than previous EPRs.

Applicant’s complete submission is attached at Exhibit A.

__________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant’s Total Active Federal Military Service Date (TAFMSD) is 12 Apr 82.  He is currently serving in the Regular Air Force (RegAF) in the grade of master sergeant, effective, and with a date of rank (DOR) of 1 Feb 00.

Applicant’s EPR profile since 1990 follows:

            PERIOD ENDING          OVERALL EVALUATION

              9 Jan 90                     4
             25 Sep 90                     5
             25 Sep 91                     5
             25 Sep 92                     5
             28 Oct 93                     5
             28 Oct 94                     5
             28 Oct 95                     5
             28 Oct 96                     5
           * 28 Oct 97                     4
             17 May 98                     5
             17 May 99                     5
             17 May 00                     5

*  Contested report.

A similar appeal was filed under AFI 36‑2401, Correcting Officer and Enlisted Evaluation Reports, which was denied by the Evaluation Reports Appeal Board (ERAB) on 2 Apr 98.

__________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The Chief, Inquiries/AFBCMR Section, AFPC/DPPPWB, reviewed this application and indicated that the first time the report will be considered in the promotion process is cycle 02E8 to senior master sergeant (promotions effective Apr 02 - Mar 03).  Should the Board grant his request, providing he is otherwise eligible, the applicant will be entitled to supplemental promotion consideration beginning with cycle 02E8.  However, should a favorable decision be received by 1 Feb 02, there will be sufficient time to make the correction to his records prior to the time the 02E8 Evaluation Board convenes.

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

The Chief, Evaluation Procedures Section, AFPC/DPPPEP, also reviewed this application and indicated that while Air Force policy does charge a rater to get meaningful information from the ratee and as many sources as possible, it is the rater’s ultimate responsibility to determine which accomplishments are included on the EPR and whether or not it is necessary for him to gather additional information from other sources in order to render an accurate assessment of the individual.

DPPPEP states that to prove the number of days of supervision on the contested report is erroneous, the applicant should submit 1) a statement from his rater or commander indicating the “from and through” dates of supervision, and 2) paid travel vouchers or a statement from finance documenting leave and TDY during the contested reporting period.  If the applicant substantiates he had absences of 30 or more consecutive days during the rating period, it would be appropriate to change the number of days of supervision.  However, it would not be appropriate to void the report unless he proves there were less than 120 days of supervision during the reporting period.

While the applicant contends the contested EPR is inconsistent with his performance while stationed at Travis AFB, 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 directives.  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.  If the applicant believes there may have been a personality conflict between him and the rater, he should provide official substantiation of error or injustice from the Inspector General (IG) or Social Actions as appropriate.  Additionally, since the applicant has delayed processing this appeal, it would be difficult if not impossible for the IG or Social Actions to conduct a meaningful investigation.

DPPPEP states that 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.  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 applicant did not include memorandums from the evaluators of the contested report.  Instead, he provided memorandums from individuals outside the rating chain.  While those individuals are entitled to their opinions of the applicant’s duty performance and the events occurring around the time the EPR was rendered, DPPPEP does not believe they were in a better position to evaluate his duty performance than those who were specifically assigned that responsibility.  Based on the lack of relevant evidence provided, DPPPEP recommends denial of applicant’s request.

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

__________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to applicant on 23 Feb 01 for review and response.  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 probable error or injustice.  After a thorough review of the evidence of record and applicant’s submission, a majority of the Board finds no persuasive evidence showing that the applicant was rated unfairly or that the EPR remarks were inconsistent with his duty performance.  The rater was tasked with the responsibility of assessing the applicant’s performance during the period in question and is presumed to have rendered his evaluation based on his personal observation of the applicant’s duty performance.  While the applicant provided statements from individuals outside the rating chain, a majority of the Board is not persuaded that these statements substantiate his allegation that the contested report was incorrect or unfair at the time it was written.  These individuals were not charged with assessing the applicant’s performance during the contested period.  Furthermore, we note the applicant’s assertion that the rater did not meet the criteria for 120 days of supervision to justify writing the EPR.  However, other than his own assertions, he provided no evidence to substantiate his claim.  The majority of the Board found that the applicant has not presented any evidence showing that the rater was unable to render an unbiased assessment of his performance or that the report was prepared contrary to the governing regulation in effect at the time.  After reviewing the evidence provided, the majority of the Board finds that the applicant has not sustained his burden to demonstrate the existence of error or injustice.  Based on the foregoing, and in the absence of evidence to the contrary, the majority of the Board finds no compelling basis to favorably consider the applicant’s request that the contested report be removed from his records.

__________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:

A majority of the panel finds insufficient evidence of error or injustice and recommends the application be denied.

__________________________________________________________________

The following members of the Board considered this application in Executive Session on 18 April 2001, under the provisions of Air Force Instruction 36‑2603:

	            Panel Chair
	            Member
	            Member

By a majority vote, the Board recommended denial of the application.  Mr.   voted to grant the relief sought but does not wish to submit a minority report.  The following documentary evidence was considered:

The following documentary evidence was considered:

     Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 12 Jan 01, w/atchs.
     Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
     Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPWB, dated 24 Jan 01.
     Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPEP, dated 31 Jan 01, w/atch.
     Exhibit E.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 23 Feb 01.

                                   
                                   Panel Chair

MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, AIR FORCE BOARD      					         FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 							         (AFBCMR)

SUBJECT:  AFBCMR Application of
	           Docket Number 01-00153

	I have carefully reviewed the evidence of record and the recommendation of the Board members.  A majority found that applicant had not provided substantial evidence of error or injustice and recommended the case be denied.  I concur with that finding and their conclusion that relief is not warranted.  Accordingly, I accept their recommendation that the application be denied.

	Please advise the applicant accordingly.