RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2008-02144
		INDEX CODE:  111.02
		COUNSEL:  NONE
		HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

Her Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) rendered for the period   17 December 2005 through 16 December 2006 be upgraded, or declared void and removed from her records.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

She was not notified that she was not meeting set standards.  There was not adequate time to correct the problems between the feedback session and the actual report being finalized.  Her supervisor sent her feedback via the email vs. direct face-to-face counseling.  The feedback scoring does not match with the EPR rating.

In support of her appeal, the applicant provides a copy of the AF IMT 931 Performance Feedback Worksheet (AB thru TSGT) and a copy of the contested report.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Information extracted from the Military Personnel Data System (MilPDS) indicates the applicant is currently serving in the Regular Air Force in the grade of staff sergeant (E-5), with a date of rank (DOR) of 1 May 2003.  Her Total Active Federal Military Service Date (TAFMSD) is 12 August 1998.

Applicant's EPR profile since 1998 follows:

	RATING PERIOD	PROMOTION RECOMMENDATION

	 11 Apr 00				5
	 26 Nov 00				5
	 26 Nov 01				5
	 15 Jul 02				5
	 16 Dec 03				5

	RATING PERIOD	PROMOTION RECOMMENDATION

	 16 Dec 04				5
	 16 Dec 05				5
	*16 Dec 06				4
	 16 Dec 07				5

	*Contested Report.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPSIDEP recommends denial.  DPSIDEP states that the applicant did not file an appeal through the Evaluation Reports Appeals Board (ERAB) in accordance with the governing directive; however, the report was forwarded to the ERAB and they recommend denial, not being convinced that the report is inaccurate or unjust.

Air Force policy requires initial feedback within 60 days of starting supervision and a mid-term feedback at the halfway point between the initial and the close-out-date of the report.  In accordance with AFI 36-2406, Officer and Enlisted Evaluations Systems, 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 occur.  The applicant's rating chain are the only members that can confirm if counseling and/or feedback was actually provided, whether formal or informal, whether verbal or in writing.  In this case, she received the mid-term feedback three months prior to the close-out date.  It is DPSIDEP's opinion that there was more than enough time to correct any problems.  

She contends that she was never notified of not meeting standards; nowhere in the report does it state, or imply, that she does not meet standards.  Actually, the report shows that she is better than average and just does not exceed the standards.

The complete DPSIDEP 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 25 July 2008 for review and comment within 30 days.  As of this date, this office has received no response.

_________________________________________________________________

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.  After reviewing 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.  In the rating process, each evaluator is required to assess a ratee’s performance, honestly and to the best of their ability.  In this case, the rater provided a mid-term feedback; and although it was given to the ratee three months prior to the closeout date of the contested report, we agree with the determination of AFPC/DPSIDEP that there was ample time to correct or improve any deficiencies that may have been noted during the feedback session.  Therefore, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of DPSIDEP and adopt its rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice.  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 AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2008-02144 in Executive Session on 16 September 2008, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

	Panel Chair
	Member
	Member

The following documentary evidence was considered AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2008-02144:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 3 June 2008, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPSIDEP, dated 9 July 2008.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 25 July 2008.

                                   
                                   Panel Chair