RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-03555 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 1. Her Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) with a closeout date of 1 Sep 11 be voided and removed from her records. 2. She be given supplemental scoring for testing cycle 13E7 for promotion to master sergeant. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 1. During the reporting period in question she did not receive an initial feedback within the first 60 days of supervision. The first feedback session was given on 28 Feb 11; however, during the session her supervisor realized that the feedback was from another non-commissioned officer’s (NCOs) feedback session. The supervisor rescheduled the feedback session for 7 Mar 11. The initial feedback session should have happened in December 2010 with a mid-term session scheduled for June 2011 to allow time to make corrections, as necessary. 2. She was never told that her duty performance was substandard She believes her evaluation was based on another technical sergeant’s merits; this individual had 4-5 years more time in service. She did not agree with her rating and did some research to see how she could get the report changed or removed from her records. 3. She provides an NCO EPR to show that several bullets of both reports are similar. 4. She was reassigned to the Total Force Service Center in August 2011 and was not given enough time to be appropriately evaluated in her job performance (as a leader, mentor, or a follower). Her complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. _________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant is currently serving on active duty in the Regular Air Force in the grade of technical sergeant. The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the letters prepared by the appropriate offices of the Air Force, which is at Exhibit C and D. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSID recommends denial. Although the applicant contends the she did not receive an initial feedback within the first 60 days and that a mid-term feedback session never occurred, she provides a copy of the initial feedback form, dated 7 Mar 11, that was signed by the rater and ratee. Only the evaluator can confirm whether a mid-term feedback took place; however, informal feedback appears to have taken place either daily or weekly. The governing instructions states that “the most effective evidence consists of statements from the evaluators who signed the report or from other individuals in the rating chain when the report was signed.” However, statements from the evaluators during the contested period are conspicuously missing. Without the benefit of reviewing these statements, DPSID can only conclude the EPR is accurate as written. The applicant did provide a copy of email communications; however, it is not in support of her appeal as the rater states in the email that she stands by her rating of the applicant’s performance during the period in question. The applicant has failed to provide any significant evidence to prove her assertions that a lack of feedback caused an unfair or unjust assessment. Further, negative factors do not need to be present in order to receive a “4” or “Above Average” rating as this signifies performance is above the established standards. The complete DPSID evaluation is at Exhibit C. APFC/DPSOE addresses the supplemental promotion consideration issue. If the Board grants the applicant’s request to void the contested report, there is no need for supplemental consideration because there would be sufficient time to update the promotion file. Promotion selections for this cycle will be accomplished in May 2013. The complete DPSOE evaluation is at Exhibit D. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant reiterates her previous contentions and provides a memorandum from her Team Lead during the contested reporting period. She also attempted to contact her additional rater for additional information regarding the contested reporting period but was unable to receive a response. The applicant’s complete submission, 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. After a thorough review of the evidence and the applicant’s submission, we are not persuaded the requested relief should be granted. Her contentions are duly noted, however, we do not find these assertions, in and of themselves, sufficiently persuasive to override the rationale provided by the Air Force offices of primary responsibility. Furthermore, we are not persuaded by the evidence provided that the contested report is not a true and accurate assessment of her performance and demonstrated potential during the specified time period. Thus, we agree with the opinions and recommendations of the Air Force offices of primary responsibility and adopt their 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-2012-03555 in Executive Session on 7 May 13, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: , Vice Chair , Member , Member The following documentary evidence was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 15 Aug 12, w/atchs. Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPSID, dated 17 Sep 12. Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/DPSOE, dated 5 Oct 12. Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 23 Oct 12. Exhibit F. Letter, Applicant, dated 21 Nov 12.