RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2003-00432
		INDEX CODE:  111.05

		COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED: NO

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

The Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) rendered for the period 17 Oct 00 - 16 Oct 01 be removed.

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

Her EPR is unjust because she never received any type of feedback written or verbal stating that she was an “average” worker and has consistently received feedback to the contrary.  She received one feedback during this period, which she perceived as a favorable one.

She was moved to another noncommissioned officer-in-charge (NCOIC) position and believes that her supervisor based the EPR rating on a memorandum for record (MFR) from her former element chief.  Furthermore, the MFR was written during her orientation period as documentation of training and she believes that if it was written for poor work performance warranting a “3” rating, she would not have been allowed to assume another NCOIC position after training was completed.

In support of her appeal, applicant submitted a personal statement, dated 31 Jan 03; a copy of her statement to the ERAB, dated 14 Jan 02; a copy of an MFR from her former element chief, dated 3 Aug 01; a copy of her EPR closing 16 Oct 01 and an AF Form 931, Performance Feedback Worksheet (AB thru TSgt), dated 5 Jul 01.

Applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.

___________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant is currently serving on active duty in the grade of staff sergeant (SSgt), with a Date of Rank (DOR) of 1 September 1999.

A resume of applicant’s last ten EPRs follows:

	      PERIOD CLOSING			OVERALL EVALUATION

			23 Sep 94							4
			23 Sep 95							5
			23 Sep 96							5
			02 May 97							4
			02 May 98							4
			02 May 99							4
			02 May 00							4
			16 Oct 00							5
	*		16 Oct 01							3
			16 Oct 02							4

*  Contested Report

The applicant appealed the contested report under the provisions of AFI 36-2401, Correcting Officer and Enlisted Evaluation Reports; however, her appeal was returned without action by the Evaluation Reports Appeal Board (ERAB) as there was no supporting documentation from the rating chain.

___________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

HQ AFPC/DPPPE reviewed this application and recommended denial.  They state that the applicant contends that the EPR was based on personal conflict rather than an accurate assessment of her actual performance.  The applicant has not provided any supporting documentation to substantiate her allegation.  The applicant contends that based on her 5 Jun 01 performance feedback (which she interpreted as favorable) she was unaware of the rater’s impression that her performance was regressing and needed significant improvement.  They indicate that after examining her feedback, it is clear that her rater pointed out several areas in which she required improvement.  She received a rating of “3” (consider for promotion) on the contested EPR, indicating she met standards.  Air Force policy states it is the rating chain’s responsibility to “assess and document what the ratee did, how well he or she did it, and the ratee’s potential based on that performance.”  The performance is recorded on the EPR, along with a valid and realistic recommendation for promotion (differentiating between ratees with similar performance records).  Air Force policy is that an evaluation report is accurate as written when it becomes a matter of record.  

They found no errors or injustices on the 16 Oct 01 EPR, and the applicant’s allegations were unsubstantiated.  

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

HQ AFPC/DPPPWB reviewed the application in regard to promotion consideration should the application be approved. The first time the contested report was used in the promotion process was cycle 02E6 to technical sergeant (promotions effective Aug 02 through Jul 03).  Should the board remove her EPR as requested, the applicant will be entitled to supplemental promotion consideration.  However, she would not become a select as she missed promotion by more than 40 points.

They defer to the recommendation of HQ AFPC/DPPPE.

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

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Applicant reiterated her original contentions and further explained the circumstances surrounding her understanding of the performance feedback system and preparation of the worksheet.  

She provided a personal statement, dated 17 Mar 03; a letter from her squadron commander on the contested report, and a letter of support from the NCOIC, Medical Flight.

Applicant’s complete response is 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 error or injustice.  We took notice of the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of the case.  However, in our opinion, these documents do not support a finding that the evaluators tasked with the responsibility of assessing her performance were unable to render an unbiased evaluation of her duty performance or that the evaluation was based on factors other than the applicant’s duty performance during the contested rating period.  Furthermore, it appears that based on the markings on the form the applicant interpreted her performance feedback to be favorable.  However, we note that the comments on the feedback form clearly pointed out areas where she needed improvement.  In view of the foregoing, and in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we conclude that there is no basis upon which to recommend favorable action on the applicant’s request for removal of the contested report from her records.

___________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:

The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of 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 AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2003-00432 in Executive Session on 21 May 2003, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

	Panel Chair
	Member
	Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 31 Jan 03, w/atchs. 
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPE, dated 19 Feb 03.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPWB, dated 26 Feb 03.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 14 Mar 03.
    Exhibit F.  Letter, Applicant, dated 17 Mar 03, w/atchs

                                   
                                   Panel Chair