RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2008-02173
		INDEX CODE:  111.02, 111.05
		COUNSEL:  NONE
		HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

Her Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) rendered for the period closing 11 April 2006, be upgraded or declared void and removed from her records.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

She did not have proper supervision during the rating period, statements on the contested EPR were falsified, she did not receive proper feedback prior to the closeout of her evaluation, and there was a personal conflict and an unfair bias toward her by her rater, which provided for a hostile work environment.

In support of her request, the applicant provided several Memorandums for Record (MFR), character references, copies of the contested EPR and previous evaluations.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant contracted her initial enlistment in the Regular Air Force on 25 May 1995.  She is currently serving in the grade of technical sergeant, having been promoted to that grade with an effective date and a date of rank of 1 April 2005.  The following is a resume of her EPR ratings, commencing with the report closing 24 January 1997:

	RATING PERIOD	PROMOTION RECOMMENDATION
			
	24 Jan 97	5
	 8 Sep 97	5
	 8 Sep 98	4
	26 Jun 99	5
	26 Jun 00	5
	26 Jun 01	5
	11 Jun 02	5

	RATING PERIOD	PROMOTION RECOMMENDATION

	11 Apr 03	5
	11 Apr 04	5
	11 Apr 05	5
	*11 Apr 06	4

	*Contested Report

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPSIDEP recommends denial.  DPSIDEP states that the applicant did file an appeal through the Evaluation Reports Appeals Board (ERAB); however, they recommended denial, not being convinced that the report was in error or unjust.

The contention that there were not enough days of supervision was reviewed and recalculated.  After recalculating the number of days the applicant and rater were on travel, the days were subtracted from the days of actual supervision and the result was changed from 296 to 251 days, which meets the requirement by the governing AFI to generate an evaluation (120 days).  

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.  In this case, she did not mention whether she requested feedback; however, she did receive an initial feedback where several issues were addressed.  She also received a Letter of Reprimand (LOR) in February 2006, which could have been the reason for the markdown.

The personality conflict and unfair biases have not been substantiated by the applicant.  She did not prove specific instances or provide actual evidence that clearly corroborates bias or conflict.  She did submit an IG complaint which was determined to be without cause and returned to the applicant.

As for the falsification of government documents, the rater was contacted by DPSIDEP to provide three new bullets; however, the rater believes that the ratee's EPR was a fair depiction of her accomplishments during the rating period; and although the ratee was not physically present at the event in question, she was in-charge of ensuring the event happened and was deserving of said credit. 

The complete DPSIDEP evaluation, with attachment, is at Exhibit C.
_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 3 October 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.  The applicant's contentions regarding the contested report are duly noted.  However, in our opinion, her assertions have been adequately addressed by the Air Force office of primary responsibility and she has provided no evidence refuting their position.  Therefore, 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.  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-2008-02173 in Executive Session on 5 November 2008, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

		Panel Chair
	Member
	Member

The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2008-02713 was considered.

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 26 June 2008, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPSIDEP, dated 26 August 2008, w/atch.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 3 October 2008.

                                   
                                   Panel Chair