RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2010-02256 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES ________________________________________________________________ THE APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) rendered for the period 11 January 2007 through 9 November 2007 be removed. ________________________________________________________________ THE APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: His 9 November 2007 EPR is unjust because he was rated above average and exceeded standards on his 9 August 2007 performance feedback and received no derogatory feedback or documentation prior to the closeout of the report. The contested EPR closed out two months before the annual close- out date without a change of rating official (CRO) notice being generated. In addition, when his annual report came due, his original supervisor was still listed on his annual EPR notice, clearly indicating that a CRO did not occur. The annual report should have been written since he did not officially have a permanent change of assignment (PCA) until May 08 and there was no CRO paperwork submitted by the recruiting squadron. He believes he received the “3” rating on the contested report because he was medically released from recruiting duty and was not rated fairly in comparison to his peers. In support of his appeal, the applicant provides a personal statement; a copy of the contested report; copies of letters of support; a copy of the letter from the Life Skills unit, and other supporting documents. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. ________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: Based on information from the Air Force evaluation, the applicant filed an appeal through the ERAB; however, the ERAB was not convinced the contested report was inaccurate or unjust. The applicant’s EPR profile of the last ten reports follows: PERIOD ENDING OVERALL RATING 31 May 01 5 31 May 02 5 10 Jan 03 5 10 Jan 04 5 10 Jan 05 5 09 Jan 06 5 09 Jan 07 5 #09 Nov 07 3 09 Nov 08 5 09 Nov 09 5 # Contested Report The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application, extracted from the applicant’s military records, are contained in the letters prepared by the appropriate offices of the Air Force. ________________________________________________________________ THE AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSID recommends denial. DPSID notes that a performance feedback was accomplished on 9 Aug 07 between the rater and the applicant. During the feedback the rater stated the applicant’s performance was either above average or he clearly exceeded expectations. However, the governing directives, state if after a performance feedback session, an evaluator discovers serious problems, he or she must record the problems in the evaluation report even when it disagrees with the previous feedback. We contend in the absence of any other information, the rater was documenting some areas which dropped in performance from when the feedback was rendered. Also, the applicant’s 9 Nov 07 report closed out two months prior to the annual evaluation date of 9 Jan 08, making the report a CRO. The applicant’s chain of command received a letter from the medical group recommending the applicant be removed from being a recruiter as soon as possible and placed back into his previous job. On 7 Nov 07, the applicant was detailed to the maintenance squadron, pending release from the recruiting squadron. In accordance with (IAW) the governing directive, commanders may deviate from the normal (supervisory) rating chain only when necessary to meet grade requirements or to accommodate unique organization structures and situations where personnel are temporarily loaned or matrixed to other activities outside the ratee’s assignment. It appears the commander may have agreed to deviate from the rating chain while the applicant was detailed to the maintenance squadron causing a CRO to be accomplished. However, the request was never updated in the Military Personnel Date System (MilPDS), causing an invalid EPR notice to be produced and given to the new squadron. In addition, the applicant contends that he was rated as a “3” due to him being medically released from his recruiting duties. The governing directive indicates an evaluation report is considered to represent the rating chain’s best judgment at the time it is rendered. Once a report is accepted for file, only strong evidence to the contrary warrants correction or removal from an individual’s record. The applicant has not substantiated the contested report was not rendered in good faith by all evaluators based on knowledge available at the time. The complete AFPC/DPSID evaluation is at Exhibit C. AFPC/DPSOE recommends denial. The first time the contested report was considered in the promotion process was cycle 08E7 to master sergeant (MSgt). The applicant’s EPR score was 123.00, his total score was 339.66, and the score required for selection in his Air Force Specialty Code (AFSC) was 342.23 (-2.57 points). Should the applicant’s request be granted, providing he is otherwise eligible, the applicant will be entitled to supplemental promotion consideration for this cycle. His EPR score would increase to 135.00 (+12.00 points) and he would become a select. As a matter of information, the applicant was selected for promotion to MSgt during cycle 09E7 and received a date of rank (DOR) of 1 Sep 09. The complete AFPC/DPSOE evaluation is at Exhibit D. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF THE AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant requests the Board base their decision on the inconsistencies of the rater and the recruiting squadron, not on the promotion consideration. The reason for the absence of information was that no information was ever conveyed. There was no one on one feedback or written feedback to address the drop in performance between the formal feedback and the EPR. He believes the erroneous EPR was generated out of emotion, not necessity. No attempt was made to CRO him to the maintenance squadron. Also, the EPR was written using the old EPR form. This form does not let the member view the EPR until it is officially in his records. The new EPR form was used starting 1 Jan 08. He questions why the report did not close with the original close-out date. He does not believe there was a reason to deviate from the rating chain at that time and that the squadron just did not want him to see the report before it became a matter of record. In addition, he states that a rater’s standards do not change from ratee to ratee; it is his expectations that are different. One of his peers had the same rater and rating chain. Both EPRs are written by the same rater with the same standards and are similar in content. The second bullet on each EPR states that he performed at a higher level, yet he received a lower performance report. However, based on performance and the same standard, he should have received the higher rating. The applicant’s complete response, with attachments, is at Exhibit F. ________________________________________________________________ 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, including his response to the Air Force evaluations, in judging the merits of the case; however, in our view, the Air Force offices of primary responsibility have adequately addressed the issues presented by the applicant and we are in agreement with their opinion and recommendation. Therefore, we did not find the evidence sufficient to conclude that the applicant was the victim of an error or injustice. In view of the above and in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no basis to recommend granting the relief sought in this application. 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 issue(s) involved. Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorably considered. ________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of material error or injustice; the application was denied without a personal appearance; and 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-2010-02256 in Executive Session on 10 February 2011, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: The following documentary evidence was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 14 Jun 10, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPSID, dated 15 Sep 10. Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/DPSOE, dated 1 Oct 10. Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 12 Nov 10. Exhibit F. Letter, Applicant, dated 7 Dec 10, w/atchs.