RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2007-01709
		INDEX CODE:  111.05
		COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED:  NO

MANDATORY COMPLETION DATE:  3 NOVEMBER 2008

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

Her Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) for the period of 25 Apr 05 to 24 Apr 06 be voided and removed from her records.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

She returned to work after a deployment to find that she had been rated "4" on her EPR.  She approached her supervisor at the time to discuss the report. He stated that he had written a strong firewall "5" report when he was directed by the then Services Commander to downgrade the report.  She was told that the downgrade was based upon paperwork presented by a previous supervisor.  She asked why none of the specific instances had supporting documentation.  Her seven-page rebuttal was the only existing documentation.  Additionally, no one in her chain had considered her rebuttal remarks.  

She was the only NCO in her shop and supervisor of seven airmen.  A single parent of two children, one of whom was very sick during this time frame, and the other was having behavioral problems.  She was attending Life Skills; however, her supervisors indicated they did not believe she should be going to Life Skills even if she felt it was helping her.  

In support of the application, the applicant submits copies of her Application for Correction/Removal of Evaluation Reports (AF Fm 948), the contested EPR, a Memo for Record, a Letter of Reprimand (LOR) and rebuttal, her child's medical records, a List of her Life Skills appointments, a Letter of Evaluation (LOE), and duty status reports.

The applicant's complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Information extracted from the Military Personnel Data System (MilPDS) indicates the applicant is currently serving on active duty in the grade of technical sergeant, effective and with a date of rank of 1 Jul 03.  

The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application, extracted from the applicant’s military records, are contained in the letter prepared by the appropriate office of the Air Force at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

HQ AFPC/DPPPEP recommends denial.  DPPPEP states the Evaluations Reports Appeals Board (ERAB) reviewed and denied the applicant's request on 24 Apr 06.  DPPPEP declares the Air Force requires endorsers, reviewers, first sergeants (on enlisted), and commanders to review evaluation reports for quality and to control inflationary tendencies.  These officials must reject poorly prepared reports and downgrade or reject inflated reports.  Evaluators who change their evaluations after talking with a superior have not necessarily been coerced.  Clear evidence must exist proving that the superior violated the evaluator's rating rights.  Supporting statements must identify the person who did the coercing, list the specific threats that were made, and identify any witnesses who can corroborate the incident.  

DPPPEP notes other than the number of day's supervision, no evidence was found that the report is inaccurate or unjustly written.  The number of day's supervision is an administrative correction, and IAW AFI 36-2401, para 1.3.1, the board will not consider nor approve requests to void a report when the error or injustice can be corrected administratively.

DPPPEP notes the applicant's statement that she received a LOR and experienced several personal issues, many of which took her away from the job.  DPPPEP opines this could have affected her duty performance in the eyes of her evaluators; therefore, it is reasonable to assume that they considered these situations when they prepared her report.  DPPPEP explains that any one of the incidents alone may not have amounted to much, but when considered together, they may have felt that a less than "firewall five" EPR was more appropriate at the time and under the circumstances.  DPPPEP concludes that other than being less than a "firewall five" report, there is nothing negative, inaccurate or unjust about the report.

The complete DPPEP 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 27 Jul 07, for review and comment within 30 days.  As of this date, this office has received no response (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.  Sufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of error or injustice.  While the applicant provided no statements of support from her rating chain, we note that all reports prior and subsequent to the contested report were rated "5."  Our review of the records provided do not reveal any evidence she was put on notice or counseled regarding the deterioration of her performance.  In particular, in our review of the contested EPR itself we found no indication of where the applicant’s performance had deteriorated.  Although the ERAB determined the only error in the contested EPR was an incorrect number of days of supervision, based on our observations as expressed above, we have some doubt regarding whether the EPR was appropriately rendered.  While we understand a performance rating is written for a specific period of time, we believe the record should be clear when an individual’s performance changes from what appears to have been a well established norm, overall ratings of “5”.  Based on our assessment of the totality of evidence in the applicant’s case, we believe our doubt regarding the contested EPR should be resolved in her favor.  Therefore, we recommend her record be corrected as indicated below.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT:

The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating to APPLICANT be corrected to show that the Enlisted Performance Report, AF IMT 910 (AB through TSgt), rendered for the period 25 Apr 2005 through 24 Apr 2006 be, and is hereby declared void and removed from her records.
_________________________________________________________________

The following members of the Board considered this application in Executive Session on 13 Sep 07, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

The following documentary evidence was considered in AFBCMR BC-2007-01709:

Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 8 Jun 07, w/atch.
	Exhibit B.  Applicant’s Master Personnel Records.
	Exhibit C.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPPEP dated 9 Jul 07.
	Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 27 Jul 07.