RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:		DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2008-02015
				INDEX CODE:  112.00
				COUNSEL:  NONE
				HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

The Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) rendered for the period ending 31 Mar 08 be changed from a "3" to reflect an overall rating of “5.”

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The report in question was unjust because she was never provided feedback or counseling.  She received feedback one week prior to close-out and the performance report does not accurately reflect her work ethics or character.

In support of her application, she provided copies of documents extracted from her military personnel records.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant is currently serving on active duty in the grade of senior airman.

She did not file an appeal through the Evaluation Reports Appeals Board (ERAB).  Her case was forwarded to the ERAB and the ERAB was not persuaded her report was inaccurate or unjust.  

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPSIDEP recommends denial.  DPSIDEP states Air Force policy requires an initial feedback within 60 days of starting supervision and a midterm approximately at the halfway point between the initial feedback and the close-out date of the report.  Her rater was not assigned to her until October 2007 and her initial feedback would have been required no later than December 2007, her midterm feedback would be due in February 2008 and her EPR closed out on 31 Mar 08.  The governing Air Force instruction states it is the ratee's responsibility to notify the rater and if necessary, the rater's rater, when a required or requested feedback did not take place.  She requested feedback on 17 Mar 08 (two weeks before the close out date of her EPR) and received feedback on 24 Mar 08.  The instruction further states only members in the rating chain can confirm if formal or informal counseling or feedback was actually provided verbally or in writing.  

Air Force policy requires formal feedback to be documented on the Air Force Form 931, Performance Feedback Worksheet (PFW) and a direct correlation between information provided during the feedback session, and the assessments on evaluation reports does not necessarily exist.  Furthermore, formal feedback does not negate any day-to-day interaction that may include any type of informal feedback or counseling, whether verbal or in writing.  

Additionally, the lack of counseling or feedback is not sufficient justification to challenge the accuracy or justness of a report.  Evaluators must confirm they did not provide counseling or feedback, and that this directly resulted in an unfair evaluation.  During the reporting period in question she received two documented formal feedbacks by two different raters.  DPSIDEP further states she has not provided any statements from her evaluators and they cannot confirm whether or not, any other form of feedback or counseling was provided.

DPSIDEP disagrees with the applicant regarding her contention that the report in question does not reflect her work ethics or character.  The report says a lot about her work ethics and character.  It shows that during the reporting period she was under close supervision and she was an average airman meeting the minimum required standards.

The applicant believes she should have received an overall “5” rating.  The ratings are at the discretion of the evaluators.  It appears from the evidence provided that the report is right and on target.

AFPC/DPSIDEP’s complete 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 18 Jul 08, for review and response 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 an error or an injustice.  The applicant's contentions are duly noted; however, we do not find her assertions, in and by themselves, sufficiently persuasive to override the rationale provided by the Air Force office of primary responsibility.  Evidence has not been presented which would lead us to believe that the contested report is not a true and accurate assessment of her performance during the specified time period, that the report was erroneously prepared, or that the assigned rating was in error or contrary to the provisions of the governing instruction.  Therefore we adopt the rationale expressed by the Air Force office of primary responsibility as basis for our conclusion that she has not been the victim of an error or injustice.  In the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no compelling basis to recommend granting the relief sought in this application.

_________________________________________________________________

The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2008-02015 in Executive Session on 24 Sep 08, under the provisions of AFI 36‑2603:

			Panel Chair
			Member
			Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

	Exhibit A.	DD Form 149, dated 7 May 08, w/atchs.
	Exhibit B.	Available Military Personnel Records.
	Exhibit C.	Letter, AFPC/DPSIDEP, dated 30 Jun 08.
	Exhibit D.	Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 18 Jul 08.

				Panel Chair