RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2011-00179 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) with a closeout date of 24 Apr 09 be voided and removed from his records. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: His performance was not accurately evaluated. The EPR in question reflects that he was an Equal Opportunity (EO) Counselor; however, he was assigned as a Dormitory Manager from 13 Feb 09 to 9 Oct 09. His dormitory supervisor wrote his Letter of Evaluation (LOE) and not MSgt X as stated on record. During the period in question, he was given a commander directed evaluation although he was not due an evaluation. He believes it was a way to deter his chances of applying for Officer Training School (OTS). He received a referral report for being issued a Letter of Reprimand for confiding in a co-worker. The LOR he received stated it was for unprofessional conduct that led to his removal from his office; however, there is no evidence that shows he behaved unprofessionally or brought discredit to his office. He voiced his unhappiness with the EO office due to experiencing personality conflicts and working in a hostile environment. His first sergeant told him that he was not in trouble, but needed to be moved out of his office only to find himself signing an LOR for unspecified incidents; he wrote a rebuttal. He received a referral EPR a month later. He was only given an initial feedback by his supervisor and believes that had he received another feedback he would have been able to improve any problems areas. He has always presented himself in a professional manner and obeyed the rules and regulation of the Air Force. He notes some of his accomplishments during the contested period to show that an injustice has occurred. In support of his request, the applicant provides a personal statement, excerpts from his personnel file, and e-mail communications. His complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. _________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant is currently serving on active duty in the grade of staff sergeant. The applicant received a “4” EPR for the closeout period of 24 Apr 09. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSID recommends denial. DPSID provides two separate evaluations in which they state the applicant did appeal through the Evaluation Report Appeals Board (ERAB); however, the ERAB reviewed the report and was not convinced the original report was unjust or wrong and denied his request. While the applicant states that the NCO who wrote the LOE was not his supervisor, he has not provided any information showing that TSgt X was not the rater nor was it contested on the referral EPR rebuttal. The “rater” is the one who is assigned to write the evaluation report and the “supervisor” is the one who is assigned to monitor day-to-day activities. The applicant mentions the EPR does not accurately reflect his performance during the reporting period. He states that Under Training Requirements, he completed all his upgrade training in a timely manner and acquired a college-teaching certificate; however, he does not provide a copy of his training record or any supporting documents from the rating chain or the training manager to verify all training requirements were completed on time. Furthermore, the applicant believes had he received feedback he would have been able to improve problem areas; however, if feedback was not provided during a reporting period, the lack of counseling or feedback, by itself, is not sufficient to challenge the accuracy or justness of a report. Evaluators must confirm they did not provide counseling or feedback, and that this directly results in an unfair evaluation. Specific information about the unfair evaluation must be provided in order for the board to make a reasoned judgment on the appeal. The instruction states that while documented feedback sessions are required, they do not replace informal day-to-day feedback. A rater’s failure to conduct a required or requested feedback session, or document the session on a Performance Feedback Worksheet, will not, invalidate any subsequent performance report. The applicant contends that his rating is untrue, unjust, and was motivated by his supervisor out of spite and jealousy for attaining a dual Master’s Degree and stemmed out of reprisal for filing a discrimination complaint against the EO Director. Although he makes these claims, he has not provided any evidence that discrimination or reprisal occurred. The applicant does not provide any information from the evaluators, an Inspector General (IG) or Military Equal Opportunity (MEO) complaint, or any other credible officials that can vouch or substantiate an error or injustice. Finally, although the applicant contends that previous EPRs with the exception of one were all “5” ratings, after reviewing his previous thirteen EPRs, his assertion does not bear out under scrutiny; a pattern becomes clear. Although most of the evaluations were of a final rating of “5”, all but three had one or more markdowns in the rater portion of the evaluation, and many of these evaluations had three or more areas marked down on each evaluation. The DPSID complete 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 22 Jul 11 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. 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. 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 involved. Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorably considered. _________________________________________________________________ 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-2011-00179 in Executive Session on 29 Sep 11, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: , Panel Chair , Member , Member The following documentary evidence was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 10 Nov 11, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Letter, AFPC/DPSID, dated 17 Jun 11 and 21 Jul 11. Exhibit C. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 22 Jul 11. Panel Chair