RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2008-02522 INDEX CODE:	111.02
COUNSEL:	NONE HEARING DESIRED:	NO

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His	IMT	Form	910,	Enlisted	Performance	Report	(EPR)(AB	thru TSgt), be voided.

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
AFI 36-2406, Officer and Enlisted Evaluation Systems, paragraph 3.9.13, states that all original documents (referral memo, rebuttal documents, etc.) would remain attached to the original report. This did not happen. His rebuttal proved that two negative statements in the EPR were false. His supervisor discarded the signed EPR and drafted a second referral EPR with two different negative bullets not previously addressed. The second referral EPR and rebuttal document were the only documents submitted, which were a total of 12 pages. The first referral EPR was 19 pages. The total number of pages submitted should have been 31 pages.

AFI 36-2406, paragraph 3.9.11, allows for corrections to be made to the report which add information or change the content and meaning. The intent of this paragraph is to correct information such as the number of occurrences of specific instances or the impact of incidents or similar types of changes. The paragraph was not put in the AFI so the rater could discard the original negative comments due to the rebuttal document proving them false and replace them with brand new information that was not introduced in the original EPR.

He received an unfair rating due to emphasis on a single incident. No official feedback was conducted by his current or past supervisors while he was assigned to the unit.

Coercion by both the acting commander and security forces manager influenced his supervisor’s rating.

In support of his request, the applicant provided statements in his own behalf, copies of two referral reports with supporting documents, memorandums for record (MFR), e-mails, an automatic records management system (ARMS) document history, and a virtual military personnel fight (vMPF) printout of his performance report information.

The	applicant's	complete	submission,	with	attachments,	is	at Exhibit A.

STATEMENT OF FACTS:
On 18 Aug 06, the applicant was notified of his referral report. He provided a response on 26 Aug 06 and the report was subsequently discarded. He was notified of a re-accomplished referral EPR telephonically on 6 Sep 06 and in writing on 18 Sep
06. On 5 Oct 06, he provided a response to the referral report. His evaluators were not convinced the new report was inaccurate and it became a matter of record.

The applicant submitted an appeal through the Evaluation Reports Appeal Board (ERAB). The ERAB reviewed the applicant’s request, and although they found some administrative errors, which have been corrected, they determined the report was properly processed in accordance with AFI 36-2406 and that no injustice took place; thereby repudiating the basis for the applicant’s request.

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
HQ AFPC/DPSIDEP recommends denial. DPSIDEP states although the applicant feels his evaluators placed undue emphasis on an isolated incident, the evaluators are obliged to consider such incidents, their significance, and the frequency with which they occurred in assessing performance and potential. Only the evaluators know how much an incident influenced the report; and based on the fact that the incident was an “uncorrectable discrepancy” in regards to security, the evaluators were well within their authority to mention it in the report.

In accordance with AFI 36-2406, paragraph 2.10, while documented feedback is required, it does not replace the day-to-day feedback and/or counselings that occur between the rater and ratee. A rater’s failure to conduct a required or requested feedback session, or document the session on a Performance Feedback Worksheet (PFW), will not, in itself, invalidate any subsequent performance report.

The complete HQ AFPC/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 29 Aug 08 for review and comment within 30 days (Exhibit D). As of this date, this office has not received a 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. We took 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. Therefore, in the absence of 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- 2008-02522 in Executive Session on 20 November 2008, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

Chair 
Member 
Member

The following documentary evidence was considered for Docket Number BC-2008-02522:

Exhibit A.	DD Form 149, dated 2 Jun 08, w/atchs. Exhibit B.	Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C.	Memorandum, AFPC/DPSIDEP, dated 6 Aug 08. Exhibit D.	Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 29 Aug 08.