RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:				DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2007-01327
								INDEX CODE:  111.05
	XXXXXXXXXXXXX				COUNSEL:  NONE

								HEARING DESIRED:  YES

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

The Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) for the period 8 April 2002 through 7 April 2004 be removed from her records.

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The EPR did not reflect a true representation of her work, and the final ratings are inconsistent with her exemplary military record.  She was not counseled as to any performance issues, and would not have been nominated for Senior Non-Commissioned Officer (SNCO) of the Year in November 2002 if performance was an issue. 

During the period of this EPR, she was promoted to the rank of senior master sergeant (E-8 – SMSgt), recommended by her unit commander and competed for SNCO of the Year, named the unit Medic of the Month in March and September 2002, and received numerous other accolades.

During the rating period, she received only one Performance Feedback Worksheet (PFW) session with her then-supervisor.  She left the unit in August 2003 because she could not continue to commute to Colorado from New Jersey to perform Unit Training Assemblies (UTAs) and Annual Tours.  She requested a final PFW prior to her departure and on numerous other occasions, and never received one.

The EPR contains very low ratings, but not low enough to be considered a referral EPR that she could rebut.  Unfortunately, she is concerned that these actions were intentional.  This EPR continues to hinder her Air Force career progression, limits senior enlisted opportunities, and is in stark contrast to the supporting documentation she has included with this application.

In support of her appeal, she has provided copies of a personal statement, the contested EPR and EPRs closing-out 7 April 2002, 20 November 2000, and 20 November 1998, her nomination for SNCO of the Year for the period 1 June – 1 October 2002, and Unit Medic of the Month documentation. 

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

________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant is currently an Air Force Reserve (AFR) Individual Mobilization Augmentee (IMA) assigned to Andrews AFB, MD.  The contested EPR was rendered while she was assigned to the AFR Unit Program at Peterson AFB, CO.

The EPR was a Biennial Report for the period from 8 April 2002 through 7 April 2004, was not a referral EPR, and none of the performance blocks contained in Section III are marked to the far left (indicating substandard duty performance/not meeting expectations) or to the far right (indicating outstanding performance/exceeding expectations).  The commander was the additional rater and concurred with the report as written.  The EPR contained an overall rating in Section IV, Promotion Recommendation, of “2” (Not Recommended at This Time) by both the rater and additional rater.  Section V, Last Performance Feedback, indicates that her last performance feedback was accomplished on 2 June 2003.

The available EPR profile pertaining to the applicant follows:

		PERIOD ENDING				EVALUATION

		 20 Nov 1998					4
		 20 Nov 2000					5
		  7 Apr 2002					5
	*	  7 Apr 2004					2
		 30 Apr 2006					5 (firewall)

*  Contested Report

________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

ARPC/DPB recommends denial as the applicant has not provided strong evidence that the EPR is in error and should be removed.  The EPR evaluates performance for the entire period, and her accomplishments in 2002 would not invalidate the evaluation for the entire period of time covered.  While she contends she did not receive feedback, the EPR indicates otherwise.

The fact that the applicant was nominated for SNCO of the Year in 2002 would not invalidate an EPR that did not closeout until 7 April 2004.  Ratings are not erroneous or unjust because they are inconsistent with other ratings received.  The EPR evaluates performance during a specific period and reflects performance, conduct, and potential at that time in that position.  There is a basic assumption that all evaluation reports are accurate and objective, and an applicant asking for removal of a performance report must provide strong evidence to overcome the report’s presumed validity.

The ARPC/DPB evaluation is at Exhibit C.

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The contested EPR does not accurately reflect her true performance, conduct, or potential during the abbreviated rating period.  The EPR is erroneous in that it reflects an incorrect reporting period due to the fact that her last UTA with the 302nd ASTS was performed on 10 August 2003 and she did not participate with this unit for pay/points after this date, and reflects a feedback session date of 2 June 2003 that did not occur and was fabricated for reasons unknown to her.  The EPR does not mention or comment as to the extensive work done by the work center under her leadership to receive a score of fully compliant by a Health Services Inspection (HSI) in August 2003, or the fact that she left the unit in August 2003 and, while in transition to IMA status, did not participate in UTAs for almost one year of the EPR’s inclusive rating period.  The two EPRs prior to, and the EPR immediately following the contested EPR represent stark and unexplained performance contrasts which are not supported by documented informal/formal feedback sessions. She was not aware of any performance issues during the true evaluation period of May 2002 – August 2003.

The applicant’s complete response, with attachments, 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.  We took notice of the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of the case; however, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of the Air Force office of primary responsibility and adopt its rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice.  The applicant’s contentions are noted; however, the available evidence indicates that although she contends she did not participate with the unit after August 2003, she was still assigned to the unit on the closeout date of the EPR and the biennial reporting period is therefore valid.  Should she provide evidence that she formally requested reassignment to a non-participating status or to another unit prior to the closeout date of the EPR, or that the feedback date indicated on the EPR was fabricated, we would be willing to reconsider her application.  Therefore, in the absence of 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(s) 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 Docket Number BC-2007-01327 in Executive Session on 21 February 2008, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

					, Panel Chair
					, Member
					, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 25 Apr 07, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Letter, ARPC/DPB, dated 12 Dec 08 [sic].
    Exhibit C.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 4 Jan 08.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, Applicant, dated 1 Feb 08, w/atchs.

                                   
                                   Panel Chair