RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-01717 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His 26 Jan 13 Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) be voided or corrected to reflect his commander’s rating and senior rater’s endorsement. APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: His rater failed to properly provide performance feedback in accordance with AFI 36-2406, Officer and Enlisted Performance Systems, because she routinely provided initial and midterm feedback on the same day. In addition, his initial and midterm feedback, as well as EPR, have almost identical verbiage to another Senior Non-Commissioned Officer (SNCO). The EPR rating and intermediate endorsement were based on a personality conflict and not his performance as evidenced by his commander’s non-concurrence with the rater’s assessment of his primary duties however; he still received an intermediate endorsement. The unjust EPR has crippled her ability to compete for promotion to Senior Master Sergeant. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant, currently on active duty in the Regular Air Force in the grade of Master Sergeant, received an EPR closing 26 Jan 13, with a rating of “5”. The report was signed by the rater and additional rater on 28 Jan 13. Section VIII, Final Evaluator’s Position of subject EPR was checked at the Intermediate Level. Based on information provided by the applicant, PPA Evaluation Appeals document control number 5233445, the Evaluation Review Appeals Board was not convinced the original report was unjust or wrong, and denied the requested relief. AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSID recommends denial indicating the applicant has not provided compelling evidence to show that the report was unjust or inaccurate as written. The applicant has not provided sufficient, substantiating documentation or evidence to prove his assertions that the contested evaluation was rendered unfairly or unjustly, and has merely offered his view of events as he believers them to be true. The applicant contends that the “5” EPR rendered on 26 Jan 13 is unjust based on his claim feedback was never conducted nor was there a feedback program in place. If the applicant was concerned about his lack of feedback, there were avenues to take to resolve the issue. When a required feedback does not take place, IAW AFI 36-2406, paragraph 2.2.1.3., “it is the ratee’s responsibility to notify the rater, and if necessary the rater’s rater, when required or requested feedback did not take place.” In this case, the applicant does not appear to have sought any remedies from the additional rater of the report to obtain feedback if this was not completed. 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 (PFW), does not invalidate a performance report. The applicant further contends that due to the commander’s non- concurrence to the mark down in Section III, Block 1, warrant’s removal of the contested evaluation. The applicant feels that the non-concurrence alone is justification for voiding the report, but rather it is only changing the marking on the front. The member has provided no proof an error/injustice had occurred, but rather confirmed by his own statement he had received day-to-day feedback through discussion with this rater and the rating chain felt he wasn’t a firewall “5”. The applicant has failed to prove the contested evaluation was not rendered in good faith by the evaluators at the time and we find this portion of the applicant’s request to be without merit. Concerning the applicant’s request to have the report modified to reflect senior rater endorsement, the applicant has failed to provide a re-accomplished EPR, along with signed memoranda of support/justification from the original evaluators at the time. The governing directive states that appeals requesting to re- accomplish an evaluation will not be considered without the applicant furnishing a new evaluation. It is therefore our recommendation, that for this reason alone, the AFBCMR reject the applicant’s request to amend or change the overall rating. The complete 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 17 Apr 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 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. 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 issues 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 documentary evidence pertaining AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2014-01717 was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 21 Apr 14, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Memorandum, AFPC/DPSID, dated 6 Apr 15. Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 17 Apr 15.