RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2007-01877
		INDEX CODE:  

		COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED: NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

The Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) he received for the period 2 January 2006 through 1 January 2007, be completely removed from his record.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

Between September 2006 and January 2007 of the rating period, his rating official had only 107 days of supervision and not the 276 days as stated on his EPR.  He had four different supervisors during the rating period including a captain who had been assigned as his supervisor in June 2006 but was deployed from 11 May 2006 to 17 September 2006.  He contends he never received a performance feedback and that Air Force Instruction (AFI) 36-2406, Officer and Enlisted Evaluation Systems, required supervisors to have a minimum of 120 days of direct supervision before an EPR can be generated.

In support of his appeal, the applicant has provided email communications and a letter of support.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant is currently serving in the Regular Air Force in the grade of technical sergeant.  He received an EPR for the period 2 January 2006 through 1 January 2007.  As he did not file an appeal under the provisions of AFI 36-2401, Correcting Officer and Enlisted Evaluation Reports, his EPR was forwarded to the Evaluation Reports Appeals Board (ERAB).  The ERAB noted there were enough days of supervision to render a report however, the number of days of supervision should be changed to 120 days in accordance with AFI 36-2406.  Table 3.2, Note 6 of AFI 36-2406, indicates that all periods of 30 or more consecutive calendar days during which the ratee did not perform normal duties under the rater’s supervision because either the ratee or rater was away for temporary duty (TDY), those days should be deducted from the total number days of supervision.  Further, AFI 36-2401 states that applications based on the fact that the ratee and rater were geographically separated is not a valid argument to remove a report.  Many Air Force members have to perform duties without the benefit of direct daily supervision.  The ERAB administratively corrected his report to show 120 days of supervision.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPSID recommends denial.  DPSID contends while the applicant did not provide the supporting documentation required in AFI 36-2401, DPSID verified from the Military Personnel Data System (MilPDS) that the supervision in question actually began on 1 April 2006, his rater was actually TDY from 23 April 2006 through 25 September 2006, and that the days of supervision on the questioned report should be changed to 120 days.  DPSID notes the ERAB’s administrative correction of his report to reflect 120 days of supervision.  In regards to his contention he did not receive a feedback session with his supervisor, DPSID refers to AFI-2406, paragraph 2.6 wherein it is stated “While documented feedback sessions are required by this Instruction, they do not replace the informal day-to-day feedback.  A rater’s failure to conduct a required or requested feedback session, or document the session on a Performance Feedback Worksheet will not, in itself, invalidate any subsequent performance reports.”

DPSID’s complete evaluation, with attachment, is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 12 October 2007 for review and comment within 30 days.  As of this date, no response has been received by this office.

_________________________________________________________________

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.  Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no compelling basis to recommend granting the relief sought in this application.

_________________________________________________________________

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-2007-01877 in Executive Session on 27 November 2007, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 7 May 2007, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPSIDEP, dated 21 September 2007,
               w/atchs.
    Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 12 October 2007.