RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:	BC-2008-02130 INDEX NUMBER:	131.00
XXXXXXX	COUNSEL:	NONE
HEARING DESIRED: YES

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
The AF Form 911, Enlisted Performance Report (EPR), rendered for the period 19 May 2007 through 18 May 2008, be declared void and removed from his records.

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
He has absolutely no idea why his rater marked him down without notice. After receiving his EPR, he requested feedback to discuss the markdown; however, her reasoning for marking him down was not justified.

In support of his application, applicant provides a copy of his EPR.

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 master sergeant.

Applicant did not apply under the provisions of AFI 36-2401, Correcting Officer and Enlisted Evaluation Reports, to have the contested EPR removed from his records through the Evaluation Reports Appeals Board (ERAB); however, it was forwarded to ERAB and the ERAB was not convinced the report was inaccurate or unjust and recommended denial.

The following is a resume to the applicant's recent EPR profile: PERIOD ENDING	PROMOTION RECOMMENDATION
18 May 05	5
18 May 06	5
18 May 07	5
*	18 May 08	5
* Contested Report

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
AFPC/DPSIDEP recommends denial and states that a rater's failure to conduct a required or requested feedback session, or document the session on an AF Form 931, Performance Feedback Worksheet (PFW), does not invalidate any subsequent performance reports. Air Force policy requires an initial feedback within 60 days of starting supervision and a midterm session approximately at the halfway point between the initial feedback and the close-out date of the report. However, when a required feedback does not take place, in accordance with AFI 36-2406, Officer and Enlisted Evaluation Systems, para 2.2.1.3., it is the ratee's responsibility to notify the rater, and if necessary the rater's rater.

In this case the applicant does not actually state that he did or did not receive the required formal feedback; only that he did not receive feedback on the markdown in standards. Either way, the lack of feedback does not justify voiding a report. Additionally, the rater is charged with determining the ratings of those they supervise--not the ratee. Instead of marking the applicant as "Clearly Exceeds," the rater marked the applicant as "Above Average." This rating does not require documentation, nor is the rater required to inform the ratee of his/her intended ratings. Furthermore, the additional rater as well as the reviewer, concurred with the report. Based on their concurrence and the fact that the overall rating is a "Truly Among Best”, we opined the report accurately portrays the intent of all the evaluators.

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 applicant on
25	July	2008	for	review	and	response.	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. After reviewing all of the evidence provided, we are not persuaded that the contested report is an inaccurate depiction of the applicant's performance and demonstrated potential for the period in question. Other than his own assertions, we have seen no evidence presented by the applicant that would lead us to believe the rater abused her discretionary authority, that the rating was based on inappropriate considerations, or that the report was technically flawed. In regard to the applicant’s contentions that he had no idea why his rater marked him down without notice and he had not received feedback, 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, the applicant's request is not favorably considered.

4.	The applicant's case is adequately documented and it has not been shown that a personal appearance with or without counsel will materially add to our understanding of the issues involved. Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorably considered.

THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:
The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of a 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- 2008-02130 in Executive Session on 9 September 2008, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

Panel Chair
 Member
Member
The following documentary evidence pertaining to Docket Number BC-2008-02130 was considered:

Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 1 Jun 08, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPSIDEP, dated 10 Jul 08. Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 25 Jul 08.