RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2007-03646
		INDEX CODE:  111.02
	XXXXXXX	COUNSEL:  NONE
		HEARING DESIRED:  NO

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) rendered for the period of 28 April 2003 to 27 April 2004, be removed from his records.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

His report was not written by the correct rater and lacks counseling or performance feedback.  During the reporting period, he had two supervisors.  One was his supervisor for a total of 179 days, and then a change of reporting official resulted in another supervisor who rated him the remainder of the reporting period.  Under the first supervisor, he never received formal performance feedback to set expectations despite verbally requesting it on three occasions.  From 1 May 2003 to 26 October 2003 he was working under the first supervisor.  From 27 October 2003 to 27 April 2004 he was working for the second supervisor who should have written the report.  The first supervisor who actually wrote the report refuses to provide an explanation for writing the report for the entire year when he only supervised him for the first six months.  He also refused to provide reasons for the ratings he gave considering he did not provide feedback and performance expectations.  

In support of his request, the applicant provided a personal letter, statements in support of his application, AF Forms 910, Enlisted Performance Report, and data extracted from his military personnel records.

His complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant contracted his initial enlistment in the Regular Air Force on 28 August 1996.  He has been progressively promoted to the grade of technical sergeant (TSgt), having assumed that grade effective and with a date of rank of 1 January 2007.

The following is a resume of his recent EPR profile:

	PERIOD ENDING	PROMOTION RECOMMENDATION

		 27 April 2001		5
		 27 April 2002		5
		 27 April 2003		5
		 27 April 2004		4(Contested Report)
		 27 April 2005		5
		 27 April 2006		4
		 27 April 2007		5

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPSIDEP recommends denial.  DPSIDEP states the purpose of the appeal process is to correct errors or injustices, not to enhance chances for promotion.  After thoroughly reviewing the applicant's case, DPSIDEP believes his motive is not to correct an injustice, but to have his earlier non-selection overturned and his promotion backdated.  He initially applied through the Enlisted Reports Appeal Board (ERAB) prior to the 2005 TSgt promotion release to have his EPR voided based on the lack of feedback and that he believed he deserved an overall five versus a four rating.  To support his claim that the report was not written by the designated rater he provided, in addition to other documents, a statement from the rater who wrote the report, a statement from the rater he believes should have written the report and a statement from the first sergeant.  He did not provide a statement from the additional rater or the commander, who both would have had the responsibility to ensure the report was written by the correct rater, was accurate and uninflated at the time it was written.  Additionally, not submitted by the applicant but in a later obtained e-mail there is mention of a feedback RIP dated 23 June 2003 that would disprove his claim that this other rater began supervision in April 2003.  The applicant provided an e-mail dated 5 June 2006 that sufficiently covered the information DPSIDEP was looking for.  It not only explains in detail the chain of events, it also confirms and shows that he was thoroughly briefed on the outcome of his EPR, that he was aware of the ERAB's correction to his original request, and that each of his concerns regarding the contested report were addressed to him by his rater and additional rater.  AFPC/DPSIDEP contacted the rater to confirm the accuracy of the statement, the rater not only confirmed the accuracy of the information, but also provided a statement.  The rater in question had been the applicant's rater on the previous two EPRs before the contested report.  As for the statements he provided; none of them support voiding the report, nor does anyone in the rating chain state the report is an inaccurate assessment of his performance.  Other than the two raters stating they rated him for a specified time that supports his claim, there is no evidence to support it.  He provided a statement from the first sergeant who stated he believed the supervisor who wrote the report was not capable of performing supervisory duties; however, this statement is in retrospect, possibly mellowed with time.  The first sergeant's role in the EPR process is to review all EPR's for quality force issues prior to the EPR going to the commander for review.  DPSIDEP contends that if the first sergeant had any reservations at the time the report was rendered, he would have brought them up at that time as part of his mandated responsibilities.  The additional rater explains in detail why the applicant was rated the way he was; and furthermore explains in exact detail with supporting documentation on the issue of the rater.  In fact, based on the evidence provided by the additional rater, DPSIDEP determined that the number of day’s supervision should reflect 292 days versus 366 days and DPSIDEP has made this correction.

DPSIDEP's complete evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit B.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant responded stating he had stellar ratings prior to the report being appealed and any regression should have been addressed during that period in order to give him a fair opportunity to progress.  His additional rater and commander refused to provide him with supporting statements.  He stated the report lacked integrity from the start.  He was briefed about the outcome of the report after the fact by his additional rater in which the rater was present but silent.  His first supervisor affirms to being his supervisor at the beginning of the rating period until October 2003 and documents are provided confirming this.  The second supervisor affirms he was not the supervisor until October 2003.  He realizes there have been administrative actions to correct the inaccuracies in his report; however, it does not remove the fact he was unfairly rated and the report does not reflect his performance.  He has proven no standard was established and he continued to perform at the highest level to which personnel have testified.  He also proved that his first supervisor should have written a report and his first supervisor agrees.  Furthermore, his additional rater arrived to the work center in September 2003 and did not assign him to the second supervisor until October 2003 due to his first supervisor being scheduled to deploy in November 2003.

His complete response, with attachments, is at 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 an error or injustice.  We took careful notice of his 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 he has not been the victim of an error or injustice.  We do not find the applicant's assertions, in and by themselves, sufficiently persuasive in this matter.  We are not persuaded by the evidence provided that the contested report is not a true and accurate assessment of his performance and demonstrated potential during the specified time period, that the comments contained in the report are in error, that the report was prepared in a manner contrary to the provisions of the governing instruction.  Therefore, in the absence of persuasive evidence to the contrary, we find no compelling basis to recommend granting the relief sought in this application.

_________________________________________________________________

RECOMMENDATION OF THE BOARD:

The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of 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 BC-2007-03646 in Executive Session on 6 May 2008, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

The following documentary evidence was considered:

 Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 5 October 2007, w/atchs.
 Exhibit B.  Letter AFPC/DPSIDEP, dated 27 February 2008, w/atchs.
 Exhibit C.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 28 March 2008.
 Exhibit D.  Letter, Applicant, dated 7 April 2008, w/atchs.