RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2007-03849
		INDEX CODE:  111.02
		COUNSEL:  NONE
		HEARING DESIRED:  NO

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) rendered for the period 20 September 2006 through 19 September 2007, be removed from his records.

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The EPR in question is unjustified.  The rater/supervisor never conducted an initial or mid-term feedback to justify the markdowns indicated on the EPR.  He was not provided informal or formal feedback indicating his EPR was in jeopardy and that his performance was lacking.  This did not allow him an opportunity to improve his performance.  He was told the contested EPR was influenced by a lieutenant colonel at Vandenberg, Air Force Base because he had not completed his Community College of the Air Force (CCAF) degree and was not enrolled in Course 12, Senior Noncommissioned Officer Academy (SNCOA).  He does not believe this is justification considering there was no feedback.

In support of his request, the applicant submits a copy of the contested report.

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

________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant contracted his initial enlistment in the Regular Air Force on 13 March 1990.  He has been progressively promoted to the grade of master sergeant, having assumed that grade effective and with a date of rank of 1 January 2006.  

The following is a resume of his recent EPR profile:

	PERIOD ENDING	PROMOTION RECOMMENDATION

		19 September 2007		4 Contested Report)
 		19 September 2006		5

		19 September 2005		5
		 9 November 2004		5
		 9 November 2003		5

________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPSIDEP recommends denial.  DPSIDEP states the applicant did file an appeal through the Evaluation Reports Appeal Board (ERAB) under the provisions of AFI 36-2401, Correcting Officers and Enlisted Evaluation Reports.  However, it was denied because the ERAB was not convinced the report was in error or unjust.  HQ USAF/A1P message 091540Z August 2006 announced master sergeant reports closing out on or after 1 October 2007 require CCAF and SNCOA completion for senior rater endorsement.  While this report closed out prior to 1 October 2007, many senior raters in the Air Force had already been using this criteria for years as an informal criteria to determine who will or will not receive their endorsement and the message only made it official.  Therefore, it is very likely that the report was influenced in part, not by the lieutenant colonel, but by Air Force policy.  Unfortunately however, it does not make the report inaccurate or unjust.  The senior rater ultimately has the responsibility to decide who will get his endorsement and it is evident that he felt the applicant was undeserving of the top markings in the applicant’s own failure to accomplish the minimal highly recommended (now mandatory) requirements of a senior noncommissioned officer.  

The complete DPSIDEP evaluation is at Exhibit B.

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant responded stating he is not contesting the senior rater endorsement.  He worked at a detachment and mentioned the lieutenant colonel because he was the squadron proper commander.  It seems the decision to downgrade his report was being led by the squadron proper commander and not the detachment commander.  However, this is speculation based on verbal comments received from his direct supervisor.  His original supervisor provided the initial feedback and nothing derogatory was mentioned, only expectations of the job and typical initial feedback protocol.  All indications from the original supervisor indicated all was well.  Within a couple of weeks of being placed under his current supervisor, his annual report became due.  He was told by the director of operations that he would be taking over the writing of his EPR since his current supervisor did not have enough time to write an accurate report.  Afterwards, the report was assigned to another captain who did not work in his section.  Approximately three to four weeks later the new director of operations requested he provide bullets because he was preparing the report.  The director of operations then assigned the task to his current supervisor.  He provided a slew of bullets and included the fact he was working on his CCAF degree and had completed credit hours doing the reporting period.  When he was assigned to the detachment he indicated he wanted to complete his CCAF degree and then start on Course 12.  No derogatory statements were made or indications given that his goals were bad or the priority of his goal was flawed.  At no time was he led to believe that his performance was sub-par.  In fact he received airman of the quarter for the quarter prior to the report closeout date and the quarter after the closeout date.  He believes there is an obligation on the part of the command to state “no senior NCO’s report will be afforded a five unless you have completed your Course 12 and CCAF degree.”  Not once did anyone mention this “in-house policy.”  The fact is, the system failed and he was not given a fair chance to correct perceived shortfalls or to relay that there was no shortfall.  He received an apology from the commander for the lack of communication in regards to the surprise “4” report.  Obviously it is too late because the report is a matter record and the Board is his only hope to correct this injustice.

The applicant's complete response 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 the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of the case; however, we agree with the opinions and recommendations 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.  We do not find his 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 demonstrated potential during the specified time period or that the comments contained in the report were in error or 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.

________________________________________________________________

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-2007-03849 in Executive Session on 13 February 2008, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

The following documentary evidence was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 20 November 2007, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Letter AFPC/DPSIDEP, dated 11 December 2007.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 11 January 2008.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, Applicant, dated 16 January 2008.