RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBERS: BC-2010-04017 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her Enlisted Performance Report (EPR), rendered for the period 7 November 2007 through 6 November 2008, be removed from her record. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: Her previous EPRs have been rated “5s” and her previous performance feedbacks have all been annotated with “little/no improvement,” or “clearly exceeds.” Her feedback, dated 19 May 2008 noted no issues, and she was not given the opportunity to review her EPR closing 6 November 2008. In support of her appeal, the applicant provides copies of two EPRs, two electronic communications, and five Performance Feedback Worksheets. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. _________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant is a former member of the Regular Air Force who retired in the grade of master sergeant (E-7). The following is a resume of the applicant’s EPR profile: PERIOD ENDING PROMOTION RECOMMENDATION 15 Sep 98 (SSgt) 5 15 Sep 99 5 15 Sep 00 (TSgt) 5 6 Nov 01 5 6 Nov 02 5 6 Nov 03 5 6 Nov 04 (MSgt) 5 6 Nov 05 5 PERIOD ENDING PROMOTION RECOMMENDATION 6 Nov 06 5 6 Nov 07 5 6 Nov 08 * 4 * Contested report The remaining relevant facts extracted from the applicant service records are contained in the evaluation by the Air Force office of primary responsibility at Exhibit B. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSID recommends denial. DPSID states there is no evidence to indicate the contested EPR is unjust or inaccurate. The applicant did not file an appeal under the provisions of Air Force Instruction (AFI) 36-2401, Correcting Officer and Enlisted Evaluation Reports, because she is no longer serving on active duty and not authorized. DPSID states the applicant contends that her EPR closing 6 November 2008 is inconsistent with her previous ratings. In accordance with AFI 36-2401, Attachment 1, Paragraph A1.5.2, ratings are not erroneous or unjust because they are inconsistent with other ratings received. A report evaluates performance during a specific period and reflects performance, conduct, and potential at that time, in that position. Therefore, the applicant’s past ratings are irrelevant with regard to her current rating. The applicant provides copies of her performance feedback and supporting documents but most of them take place outside of the rating period in question. The feedback, dated 1 November 2007 looks as if the date has been altered. In addition, the form is marked as a “Mid-term” feedback; however, the reporting period started 7 November 2007, so this would have made it an initial feedback. The performance feedback, dated 19 May 2008, took place almost six months before the close-out of the contested report. Their office is unable to conclude what might have taken place during that timeframe from the Mid-term feedback and the close-out date of the contested EPR. Something of significance could have transpired in that six-month gap that resulted in the final rating she received. According to an email, provided by the applicant, it could be proposed that the rating she received might have something to do with what she was going through over that year and how the applicant’s attitude had changed for the worse while affecting the office. It could even be presumed that it may have been because in the rater’s eyes, she was not looking out for her people’s careers, being a mentor. The other email provided by the applicant indicates her commander agreed that the handling of the EPR was unfortunate and regrettable; however, he does not state that he disagrees with the overall rating on the evaluation DPSID states that Air Force policy indicates that an evaluation report is accurate as written when it becomes a matter of record. To effectively challenge an EPR, it is necessary to hear from all the members of the rating chain – not only for support, but also for clarification/explanation. The applicant states that she was not given the opportunity to review her contested report while she was on convalescent leave in the area; however, she has not provided any evidence to show that these allegations are factual. 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 a member’s record. The applicant has not substantiated the contested report was not rendered in good faith by all evaluators based on the knowledge of her performance at the time. The complete DPSID evaluation is at Exhibit B. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 25 March 2011, for review and comment within 30 days (Exhibit C). 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. 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 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-2010-04017 in Executive Session on 19 July 2011, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2010-04017 was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 11 Oct 10, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Letter, AFPC/DPDID, dated 24 Feb 11. Exhibit C. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 25 Mar 11.