RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2011-00456 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 1.  His Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) covering the period 16 Apr 07 through 15 Apr 08 be declared void and removed from his record. 2.  By amendment: a.  His Weighted Airman Promotion System (WAPS) score for the Calendar Year 2010 (CY10) Technical Sergeant (TSgt/E-6) promotion board be recalculated. b.  His date of rank to the grade of TSgt be changed to Aug 10, with all appropriate back pay and allowances. c.  His Selective Reenlistment Bonus (SRB) from Dec 10 be recalculated to reflect he reenlisted in the grade of E-6 rather than E-5. d.  He be approved for WAPS testing for promotion cycle 13E7. e.  His “desk drawer” Letter of Counseling (LOC) be rescinded. APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: The Overall Performance Assessment rating of “Above Average (4)” on his contested EPR was an inaccurate assessment of his performance during the reporting period, based upon the following: 1.  His rater felt 187 days of supervision was insufficient to warrant a rating of “5.” The rater stated “If (the applicant) stayed with me for the remainder of the period, I’m sure he would have improved enough to warrant a ‘5’.” 2.  His Letter of Evaluation (LOE) covering the period of his deployment to Iraq was weak. It didn’t have enough bullets to grab the readers’ attention however his EPR rater used 75 percent of the bullets from the LOE. Further, his deployed commander who wrote the LOE, provided him a letter of support in which she refers to his performance in Iraq as “Superb & Top Notch.” 3.  He was given an overall “5” on his previous year’s EPR when his efforts and circumstances were a mirror image of the contested EPR. 4.  His LOC, dated 9 Aug 07, was unjustified because it was issued in response to two similar events for which he had not been provided training. If counseling occurred before the LOC was issued, it was not properly documented on an IMT 174, Record of Individual Counseling; he was not afforded his three days for due process when presented the LOC; and, the LOC did not contain the required Privacy Act Statement. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, consists of his original application at Exhibit A and his updated application at Exhibit H. STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant served in the Regular Air Force during the matter under review. The applicant’s most recent EPRs were: Period of Supervision Overall Assessment 23 Jan 14 thru 30 Nov 14 5 23 Jan 12 thru 22 Jan 13 5 23 Jan 11 thru 22 Jan 12 5 23 Jan 10 thru 22 Jan 11 5 16 Apr 09 thru 22 Jan 10 5 16 Apr 08 thru 15 Apr 09 5 16 Apr 07 thru 15 Apr 08 4** Contested EPR 16 Apr 06 thru 16 Apr 07 5 15 Apr 05 thru 15 Apr 06 5 On 30 May 08, the applicant received an EPR covering the period 16 Apr 07 through 15 Apr 08 on which he received an Overall Performance Assessment in Block V of “Above Average (4).” According to the documentation submitted by AFPC/DPSOE, the applicant was considered by the CY09 and CY10 TSgt promotion selection boards, and not selected for promotion. On 26 Jan 11, the applicant submitted a DD Form 149, Application For Correction Of Military Record, requesting his EPR covering the period 16 Apr 07 through 15 Apr 08 be declared void and removed from his record. On 1 Aug 11, the applicant was promoted to TSgt. On 13 Sep 13 Aug 11, the applicant’s case was closed by the AFBCMR based upon a request from the applicant to close the case. On 16 May 14, the applicant submitted a new DD Form 149 requesting his case be reopened, and providing additional support. The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the memoranda prepared by the Air Force offices of primary responsibility (OPRs), which are attached at Exhibits C, D, and I. AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS: AFPC/DPSID recommends denial of the applicant’s request to void and remove his EPR, indicating there is no evidence of an error or an injustice. 1.  The contested EPR reflects a period of 187 days of supervision. AFI 26-2401, Correcting Officer and Enlisted Promotion Reports, states that often evaluators feel 60 or 120 days is not a sufficient time to evaluate a ratee. Air Force standards establish that normally 120 days (and in certain situations as little as 60 days) are adequate time to provide a valid assessment and this standard applies Air Force wide. Appeals based on a rater’s belief that 120 days is insufficient time to provide adequate assessment are not approved. 2.  The applicant’s rater on his EPR states the LOE submitted by the applicant’s deployed Commander was weak and there was not enough in the bullets to “grab” the reader. However, the rater himself chose to document most of the LOE bullets on the contested report. The applicant also received a decoration with the LOE from his deployment, and it appears the rating chain was fully aware of the decoration at the time the EPR was accomplished. 3.  Although the applicant received an overall rating of “5” on his EPR the previous year, ratings are not erroneous or unjust because they are inconsistent with other ratings previously received. A report evaluates performance during a specific period and reflects performance during a specific period. 4.  The rater states the applicant’s performance was generally satisfactory, with the exception of the LOC and an email counseling. Although the applicant received an LOC and an email counseling during the rating period, the rated did not mention or document these actions on the EPR nor did the EPR contain any derogatory information. Further, concerning the applicant’s performance feedback he was clearly marked as an “average” performer and it appears the applicant did not progress after the performance feedback, resulting in an overall assessment of “4.” The rater states that as it stands, he can honestly only give the applicant a “4” which he feels was fair considering the circumstances. At the time, the rest of the rating chain also concurred with the final assessment. Air Force policy is that an evaluation report is accurate as written when it becomes a matter of record. A report is considered to represent the rating chain’s best judgment at the time it is rendered, and only strong evidence to the contrary warrants correction. To effectively challenge an EPR, it is necessary to hear from all the members of the rating chain. The applicant failed to provide any information/support from the additional rater and commander on the contested EPR. The applicant has not substantiated the contested report was not rendered in good faith by all evaluators based on knowledge available at the time. A complete copy of the AFPC/DPSID evaluation is at Exhibit C. AFPC/DPSOE defers to AFPC/DPSID and does not make a recommendation, but explains the impact of the EPR on the applicant’s promotion considerations. The first time the contested report was considered in the promotion process was promotion cycle 09E6. Removal of the contested report would not increase his total score for cycle 09E6 sufficiently to meet the promotion cutoff score required for selection. The next time the contested report was used was in promotion cycle 10E6. The applicant’s EPR score was 124.87, his total score was 306.53, and the score required for selection in his AFSC was 309.28. Should the AFBCMR void this report as requested the applicant would be entitled to supplemental promotion consideration during this cycle. His EPR score would increase to 130.95, and he would become a selectee in cycle 10E6. A complete copy of the AFPC/DPSOE evaluation is at Exhibit D. APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS: In response to the OPR evaluations from 2011, the applicant requested his application be administratively closed. He submitted an updated application, dated 16 May 14. In the updated application, he begins by rebutting the staff advisories from 2011, reiterates each of the contentions from his original application: 1.  His additional rater provided a letter of support in which he stated the applicant’s rater did not initially use the LOE for the EPR rating and had to be instructed to request inputs from the deployment. In addition, the additional rater was not aware of the applicant’s post deployment decoration. 2.  He mentioned his previous year’s EPR in his initial application in order to show the inconsistency in his ratings from one year to the next. The previous year he received an overall rating of “5” with the same period of supervision, while this year his rater felt 187 days of supervision was insufficient time. His travel vouchers indicate it as actually 205 days. How can the time for one rating period with no medal (ending in 2007) be a sufficient for a fair and accurate rating of “5,” but the same amount of time for the following rating period (ending in 2008) with an Army Commendation Medal (ARCOM) be considered his rater’s “biggest problem?” 3.  His additional rater states the applicant’s LOC was not used in the additional rater’s evaluation portion of the EPR in question based upon its improper administration. The LOC should not have been considered by his rater. Further, the AFPC/DPSID advisory suggests if he had PCS’d he would have receive the same rating, but he didn’t PCS. 4.  His supervisor did not follow the correct process or timeliness for providing feedback. His feedback session dated 12 Jun 07 was his follow-up feedback from his previous reporting period, not his initial feedback as it was marked. So, 59 days after his previous year’s EPR closed out 57 percent of his performance had changed to average with no supporting documentation to justify the decline in performance. 5.  His peers, deployed commander, and additional rater have provided supporting statements indicating his rating did not accurately reflect his performance during that performance period (Exhibit H). ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSID recommends denial of the applicant’s request to void and remove his EPR, indicating there is no evidence of an error or an injustice. DPSID reiterated the initial rationale they provided in response to the applicant’s first application in 2011, emphasizing the applicant’s LOC was not mentioned in the EPR in question, and only evaluators know how much an incident influenced a report; the period of supervision was sufficient; the applicant’s rater was aware of his decoration prior to completing his EPR; the rater has confirmed his final overall assessment of a “4” was appropriate considering the circumstances; and, even with the additional letters of support from his additional rater and deployed commander, the applicant has not substantiated the contested report was not rendered in good faith by all evaluators based upon knowledge available at the time. A complete copy of the AFPC/DPSID evaluation is at Exhibit E. APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF THE ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION: In further support of his request, the applicant submitted an email expressing concerns about the AFPC/DPSID advisory. The 22 Sep 15 DPSID advisory is almost an exact copy of the 7 Jun 11, DPSID advisory he received which caused him to administratively close his case until he compiled additional documentation. The additional information included support from his additional rater. However, the 22 Sep 15, DPSID advisory still says “The applicant has failed to provide any information/support from the additional rater and commander,” making it look as though the new information he submitted was not reviewed by DPSID. His additional rater did submit a Memo for the Record, which included a discussion about how he did not use the applicant’s LOC in preparing his EPR comments because it was “improperly administered or documented,” he was unaware of the applicant’s ARCOM during the reporting period, and midterm feedback was not documented or provided to the additional rater. In addition, the applicant submitted travel vouchers which contradict the 187 day period of supervision, showing additional supervisory time. Finally, he asks about the possibility of appearing before the Board in person. 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 an error or injustice. We took notice of the applicant’s complete submission, to include his initial submittal, dated 10 Jan 11, his updated submittal dated 16 Mar 14, and his e-mail rebuttal dated 6 Oct 15, in judging the merits of the case; however, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of AFPC/DPSID and adopt its rationale as the basis for our conclusion the applicant has not been the victim of an error of injustice. While we acknowledge the applicant’s multiple contentions regarding the EPR in question, we note his rater ultimately stated he could honestly only give the applicant a “4” which he feels was fair considering the circumstances. At the time, the rest of the rating chain also concurred with that final assessment. Even though the applicant submitted support from his additional rater, to effectively challenge an EPR it is necessary to hear from all the members of the rating chain. The applicant failed to provide information or support from his commander, and the inputs from his rater indicates the EPR is correct as written. Therefore, the documentation provided does not meet the threshold for voiding or removing an EPR once it becomes a matter or record. Concerning the applicant contentions regarding his “desk drawer” Letter of Counseling (LOC) and its potential influence on his EPR, the Board notes neither the LOC, nor the actions discussed in the LOC, were mentioned in the EPR, which contained no derogatory comments. It is a rater’s responsibility to consider all information he/she is aware of when completing an evaluation. Therefore, the applicant’s rater was required to consider the underlying incident(s) addressed in the LOC regardless of whether or not they were formally documented. Thus, the fact that incident(s) were documented in an LOC would not change the rater’s assessment of the applicant’s performance during the rating period. Therefore, in the absence of persuasive evidence to the contrary, we find no basis to recommend granting the requested relief. 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-2011-00456 in Executive Session on 22 Oct 15, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: Panel Chair Member Member The following documentary evidence was considered: Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 10 Jan 11, w/atchs. Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPSID, dated 7 Jun 11. Exhibit D.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPSOE, dated 30 Jun 11. Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 22 Jul 11. Exhibit F.  Letter, Applicant, dated 23 Aug 11. Exhibit G.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 13 Sep 11. Exhibit H.  DD Form 149, dated 16 May 14, w/atchs. Exhibit I.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPSID, dated 22 Sep 15. Exhibit J.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 22 Sep 15. Exhibit K.  E-mail, Applicant, dated 6 Oct 16. 7