RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2007-00914
		INDEX CODE:  111.05

	XXXXXXX	COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED: YES

MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:  25 SEP 2008

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

Her enlisted performance report (EPR) closing 7 Feb 07 be removed.

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

She was not given a mid-term feedback and was not aware of sub-standard performance.  The rater’s comments show no negative remarks except for the last line in Section VI.  The date, 29 Jan 07, is incorrect because she only received an initial feedback on 28 Sep 06; cited rater was deployed during the Jan-Apr time frame.  

Additionally, she had five different supervisors during the last year giving her no continuity or stable supervision; section III either met or exceeded all standards.  She feels the EPR contradicts itself and does not accurately reflect her performance.

She is confused about exactly what her role is, what is expected of her, and the status of her current progression.  

In support of her appeal, applicant submitted a copy of her EPR closing 7 Feb 07; Change of reporting official request, dated 8 Sep 06; a copy of Performance Feedback Notification, dated 6 Nov 06, and copy of Performance Feedback Worksheet (PFW), dated 25 Sep 06.

Applicant’s complete submission, with attachment, is at Exhibit A.

___________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 2 May 04 for a period of four years.  She is currently assigned as a Traffic Management Journeyman.  Her current grade is airman first class with a date of rank of 4 Sep 05.

A profile of her enlisted performance reports follows:

	      PERIOD CLOSING			OVERALL EVALUATION

			07 Feb 06							4
*			07 Feb 07							2 

* Contested Report reflects last performance feedback was accomplished on 29 Jan 07.

___________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

HQ AFPC/DPPPEP reviewed this application and recommended denial.  

Applicant contends she did not receive a formal midterm feedback session during the reporting period.  AFI 36-2406, para 2.2, ratees should notify the rater, and if necessary, the rater’s rater when a required or requested feedback session does not take place.  Only members in the rating chain can confirm if counseling was provided.  While documented feedback sessions are required, a direct correlation between information provided during feedback sessions and the assessments on evaluation reports do 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.  A rater’s failure to conduct a required or requested feedback session does not itself invalidate an EPR.

The applicant contends she had five different supervisors within the last year giving her no continuity or stable supervision.  Air Force does not require the designated rater to be the immediate supervisor.  Evaluators are responsible for rendering fair and accurate EPRs and ensuring the comments support the rating.  The Air Force charges the rater to rate according to their opinions and impressions of the general level of performance of the Air Force personnel in the various grades.

Air Force policy is that an evaluation report is accurate as written when it becomes a matter of record.  To effectively challenge an EPR, 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 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 Military Equal Opportunity is appropriate, but not provided in this case.

A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit C.

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 4 May 07 for review and comment within 30 days.  As of this date, no response has been received by this office (Exhibit D).

___________________________________________________________________

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 she did not receive proper feedback and that she was not aware of her substandard performance which resulted in an overall rating of a “2.”  We noted the comments provided by the applicant; however we found no evidence to show the contested report was not an accurate or fair assessment of her overall duty performance during the contested rating period or that the contested report was prepared contrary to the governing instruction.  The Chief, Evaluations Programs Branch, has addressed the issues presented by the applicant and we are in agreement with her opinion and recommendation.  Therefore, we adopt the rationale expressed as the basis for our decision that the applicant has failed to sustain her 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 in this application.

4.  The applicant's case is adequately documented and it has not been shown that a personal appearance with or without counsel will materially add to our understanding of the issue involved.  Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorably considered.

___________________________________________________________________

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-2007-00914 in Executive Session on 26 June 2007, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

	XXXXXXXXXX, Vice Chair
	XXXXXXXXXX, Member
	XXXXXXXXXX, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 14 Mar 07, w/atchs. 
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPPEP, dated 18 Apr 07.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 4 May 07.

                                   XXXXXXXXXX
                                   Vice Chair