RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2003-01623
		INDEX CODE:  111.05

		COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED: NO

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

The Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) rendered for the period 9 Jun 00 - 8 Jun 02 be voided.

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

His EPR is improper.  According to AFI 36-2406, if his rating official changed, he should have received a change of reporting official (CRO) report.  He performed the required number of points to require an EPR.

He was activated in support of Operation Noble Eagle, and at the time of his activation, he was assigned as Chief, Training Resources.  After reporting for duty, he was advised that he would be performing duty as a Flight Sergeant and another IMA was appointed as his supervisor and rater, which he believes is contrary to Air Force instructions and those from the Air Reserve Personnel Center (ARPC).

The ratings he received in his EPR were not consistent with his performance feedbacks.  Additionally, the number of days of supervision cited on his report should have only been six months, not 730 days.

In support of his appeal, applicant submitted a copy of his EPR closing 8 Jun 02; a computer printout (Ratee’s Initial/Follow-up Performance Feedback Notification), dated 11 Jun 01; a Report on Individual Personnel (RIP), dated 14 Feb 02; a Records Review Rip, dated 24 Jul 02; a copy of a CRO/Duty Title Worksheet; copies of his AF Forms 932, Performance Feedback Worksheet (MSgt thru CMSgt), dated 2 Jan 02 and 19 Feb 02, respectively, and a copy of emails from the Base IMA Administrator (BIMAA).

Applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.

___________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Information extracted from the Personnel Data System (PDS) reflects applicant’s Total Enlistment Military Service Date (TEMSD) and Paydate as 25 Oct 1978.  His entered his last enlistment on 29 Feb 2000.  He was promoted to the grade of Master Sergeant (MSgt), with a Date of Rank (DOR) of 1 September 1994.  On 16 Oct 2002, applicant transferred to the Retired Reserve.

A resume of applicant’s EPR profile follows:

	      PERIOD CLOSING			OVERALL EVALUATION

			30 Dec 86							9(APR)
			30 Dec 87							9(APR)
			30 Dec 88							9(APR)
			08 Jun 98							5(EPR)
			08 Jun 00							5(EPR)
*			08 Jun 02							4(EPR)

*  The contested report rendered for the period 9 Jun 00 - 8 Jun 02, reflects 730 days of supervision and the duty title “Flight Chief.”

___________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

HQ ARPC/DPB recommended denial.  They state the applicant acknowledged receipt of the new rater as his supervisor per feedbacks given him on 2 Jan 02 and 19 Feb 02, even though the official paperwork was completed on 7 Jun 02.  While current policy requires performance feedback for personnel, a direct correlation between information provided during the feedback sessions and the assessments on an evaluation report do not necessarily have to exist.  In accordance with AFI 36-2401, Correcting Officer and Enlisted Evaluation Reports, para A1.5.8, 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.  AFI 36-2406, Officer and Enlisted Evaluation Systems, requires a change of reporting official EPR when either the rater or the ratee departs on a permanent change of station (PCS).  Neither the ratee (applicant) nor rater departed PCS, so no EPR was required.

AFI 36-2406, also states that “For IMAs, the rater will not normally be another IMA.  However, if circumstances require that an IMA must directly supervise another IMA, the rater will be the official appointed by management.”  The reasoning behind this is that IMAs do not normally perform duty together; so one IMA supervising the performance of another IMA was not in the best interest of either IMA.  Since the applicant and his supervisor were activated together and performing duty on a daily basis, the specifics of the second part of the paragraph were met; circumstances required one IMA to directly supervise another.  

They further state that the Noble Eagle/Enduring Freedom message the applicant submitted with his request addressed evaluation reports for officers only.  Therefore, the policy stated in the AFI applies.  All regulatory guidelines were followed and unless the applicant can provide substantiation from his former rating chain to support his position of the inaccuracy of the EPR, the report is considered accurate and appropriate, as written.

A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit C.

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Applicant reiterated his original contentions that the EPR was not legal and gave further explanation of circumstances surrounding his performance feedback accomplishment and his reasoning as to why he disagrees with the advisory opinion from HQ ARPC.

Applicant’s complete response is at Exhibit E.

___________________________________________________________________

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.  The applicant contends that if his rating official changed, he should have received a change of reporting official (CRO) report and that the EPR ratings he received were not consistent with the feedbacks he received.  After a thorough review of the evidence provided in support of the applicant’s appeal, we do not find his assertions, in and by themselves, sufficiently persuasive to override the rationale provided by the Air Force.  Other than his own assertions, he did not present any corroborative evidence from his rating chain or chain of command to support his contention of error or injustice.  Nor did he provide any evidence to show the contested report is an inaccurate or unfair assessment of his overall duty performance during the contested rating period or that the contested report was prepared contrary to the governing instruction.  Therefore, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of the Air Force office of primary responsibility and adopt the rationale expressed as the basis for our decision that the applicant has failed to sustain his burden of having suffered either an error or injustice.  In the absence of persuasive evidence to the contrary, we find no compelling basis to recommend granting the relief sought.

4.  Notwithstanding the above findings, after reviewing the evidence provided by the applicant, we believe that the number of days of supervision on the contested report should be amended.  In this respect, the 75th Security Forces CRO/Duty Title Worksheet reflects the effective date of change of reporting official was 1 Dec 01.  We therefore believe that the number of days of supervision should be changed to accurately reflect the period of supervision by the rater who rendered the report.  Accordingly, we recommend that the contested report be amended to the extent indicated below.

___________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT:

The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating to the APPLICANT, be corrected to show that the AF Form 911, Senior Enlisted Performance Report, rendered for the period 9 June 2000 through 8 June 2002, be amended in Section I (Ratee Identification Date), Item 8 (No. Days Supervision), to read 190 rather than 730.

_________________________________________________________________

The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2003-01623 in Executive Session on 20 August 2003, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

All members voted to correct the records, as recommended.  The following documentary evidence was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 6 May 03, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, HQ ARPC/DPB, dated 23 May 03.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 3 Jun 03.
   Exhibit E.  Letter, Applicant, dated 24 Jun 03

                                   Panel Chair

AFBCMR BC-2003-01623

MEMORANDUM FOR THE CHIEF OF STAFF

	Having received and considered the recommendation of the Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records and under the authority of Section 1552, Title 10, United States Code (70A Stat 116), it is directed that:

	The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating to APPLICANT be corrected to show that the AF Form 911, Senior Enlisted Performance Report, rendered for the period 9 June 2000 through 8 June 2002, be, and hereby is, amended in Section I (Ratee Identification Data), Item 8 (No. Days Supervision), to read 190 rather than 730.

		Director
		Air Force Review Boards Agency