RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2008-02194
		INDEX CODE:  111.02
		COUNSEL:  NONE
		HEARING DESIRED:  NO

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

Her Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) rendered for the period of 11 January 2007 through 10 January 2008 be voided.

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

She received an initial feedback and was never given verbal feedback until her EPR rating was questioned.  Her supervisor stated she was not ready to be a master sergeant and rated her performance a “4”.  She does not understand this considering she had just returned from the Noncommissioned Officer Academy on 4 April 2008.

In support of her request, the applicant provided a statement from her current supervisor, copies of AF Forms 910, Enlisted Performance Report (AB-TSGT), AF IMT 931, Performance Feedback Worksheet (AB thru TSGT). 

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

________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 18 November 1992 and was progressively promoted to the grade of technical sergeant having assumed that grade effective and with a date of rank of 1 September 2006.

The following is a resume of the applicant’s recent EPR profile:

	   PERIOD ENDING		   OVERALL EVALUATION 

10 January 2008                 4B(Contested Report) 
10 January 2007                 5B
10 January 2006                 5B
10 January 2005                 5B
10 January 2004                 5B

EPR PROFILE CONTINUED:

10 January 2003                 5B
10 January 2002                 5B

________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPSIDEP recommends denial.  DPSIDEP states Air Force policy requires an initial feedback within 60 days of starting supervision and midterm feedback approximately at the halfway point between the initial feedback and closeout date of the report.  However, when required feedback does not take place, AFI 36-2406, Correcting Officer and Enlisted Evaluation Reports, states it is the ratee’s responsibility to notify their rater, and if necessary the rater’s rater, when required or requested feedback did not take place.  A formal feedback does not negate any day to day interaction that may include any type of informal feedback/counseling, whether verbal or in writing.  

There may be occasions when feedback was not provided during a report period; the lack of counseling or feedback, by itself, 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.  Unfortunately, in this case, she did receive an initial feedback, and as explained in the rater’s statement the midterm feedback was not accomplished due to her deployment; however the rater states he did provide verbal feedback.  The rater also explains that he and the additional rater had both originally agreed on the overall rating, however, when the commander engaged the overall rating came into question.  AFI 36–2406 states it is the commander’s responsibility to ensure evaluation reports accurately describe performance and make realistic recommendations for advancement.  

There are procedures for disagreements; first discussion and if no agreement is reached, then nonconcurrence.  In this case, it appears that both procedures were used, and performed correctly.  The additional rater agreed via discussion and the rater refused to change his rating; resulting in the additional rater nonconcurring.  Unfortunately, she did not provide a statement from the additional rater explaining his position; however, the additional rater states clearly in the EPR that she is a strong above average performer and will be truly among the best with proper guidance and mentorship. 

The complete DPSIDEP evaluation is at Exhibit B.

________________________________________________________________

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 (Exhibit C).

________________________________________________________________

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 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.  We do not find her assertions, in and by themselves, sufficiently persuasive in this matter.  Additionally, we are not persuaded by the evidence provided that the contested report is not a true and accurate assessment of her performance and 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.

________________________________________________________________

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-2008-02194 in Executive Session on 28 August 2008 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:
			Panel Chair
			Member
Member

The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2008-02194 was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 20 May 2008, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Letter AFPC/DPSIDEP, dated 10 July 2008.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 25 July 2008.

		
		Panel Chair