RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF: 	DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-00759

					COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED:  NO 



APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

The Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) rendered for the period 
16 Apr 12 through 15 Apr 13 be voided from his records.


APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

According to AFI 36-2401, Correcting Officer and Enlisted 
Evaluation Reports, and AFI 36-2406, Officer and Enlisted 
Evaluation Systems; his rater did not have 120 days of 
supervision to write an annual report.  According to the AFI a 
valid assessment can be rendered by the rater with a minimum of 
60 days of supervision; his rater only had 8 days of actual 
supervision.  Due to the lack of supervision his rater could not 
effectively evaluate his performance and had no valid basis to 
assess a rating for the period in question due to them being 
geographically separated.

AFI 36-2406, paragraph 3.1.6.2 states “Do not deduct any periods 
of leave, TDY, absences or period of loaned out to other 
organizations.

The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at 
Exhibit A.


STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant is currently serving on active duty in the grade 
of technical sergeant (E-6).

The applicant’s EPR profile is listed below:

Period Ending		   Overall Evaluation
	 15 Apr 12				5
	*15 Apr 13				4
	 15 Apr 14				4
	 30 Nov 14				5

*Contested Report
The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are 
contained in the memorandum prepared by the Air Force office of 
primary responsibility (OPR), which is attached at Exhibit C.    


AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPSID recommends denial indicating there is no evidence of 
an error or an injustice.  

The applicant filed an appeal through the Evaluation Reports 
Appeals Board (ERAB).  His case was closed due him failing 
provide additional supporting documentation.

The applicant contends his rater did not have enough days of 
supervision to write the contested EPR.  Under the provisions of 
the old version of AFI 36-2406, dated 15 Apr 05, all periods of 
30 days or more were deducted from the number of days of 
supervision if the rater or ratee was TDY, on leave, in patient 
status, in classroom training, AWOL, Dropped From Roll, or in 
confinement.  However, on 3 Jan 13, AFI 36-2406 was republished 
combining AFI 36-2406 and AFI 36-2401.  Under the new AFI period 
of leave, TDY, absences or period loaned out other organizations 
are not deducted from the number of days of supervision.  Some 
of the changes that were made to the AFI included paragraph 
3.1.6.2 “Do NOT deduct any period of leave, TDY, absences or 
period loaned out to other organizations.”  Since the 
applicant’s contested report closed out after the publishing of 
the new AFI, there is no valid basis for his request.

Furthermore, Air Force policy is that an evaluation report is 
considered accurate as written when it becomes a matter of 
record, and is a representation of the rating chain’s best 
judgment at the time it is rendered.  To effectively challenge 
an evaluation, it is necessary to hear from all the members of 
the rating chain—not only for support, but also for 
clarification/explanation.  The applicant has not provided any 
information or documented support from his rating chain.  
Without benefit of these statements, and based on the evidence 
provided, they can only conclude the report is accurate as 
written.  They determined the contested report was accomplished 
in direct accordance with all application Air Force policy.

A complete copy of the AFPC/DPSID evaluation is at Exhibit C.


APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the 
applicant on 7 Jan 15 for review and comment within 30 days 
(Exhibit D).  As of this date, no response has been received by 
this office.


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 in judging the 
merits of the case; however, we agree with the opinion and 
recommendation of the Air Force office of primary responsibility 
(OPR) and adopt its rationale as the basis for our conclusion 
the applicant has not been the victim of an error of injustice.  
Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find 
no basis to recommend granting the requested relief.


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-2014-00759 in Executive Session on 24 Feb 15 under the 
provisions of AFI 36-2603:

	, Panel Chair
	, Member
	, Member

The following documentary evidence pertaining AFBCMR Docket 
Number BC-2014-00759 was considered:

	Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 19 Feb 14, w/atchs.
	Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
	Exhibit C.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPSID, dated 6 Nov 147 Jan 15
Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 7 Jan 15.