RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-03262 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His enlisted performance report (EPR) covering the period 11 May 12 through 30 Dec 12, be declared void and removed from his record. APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: His EPR was unjustly marked down to an overall “4.” All of his first four EPRs while he served in recruiting were firewall “5s.” The reasons the ERP should be voided are: 1.  The rater on the EPR in question was not his rater for the reporting period. 2.  Initial or mid-term feedback were never conducted. 3.  He was never given the opportunity to review or sign the final version of the EPR. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant served in the Air Force Recruiting Service during the period of time in question. On 18 Apr 13, the applicant was furnished an EPR covering the period 11 May 12 through 30 Dec 12 on which he was assessed as “meets” in Block 6, Leadership/Team Building/Followership/ Mentorship, and was rated a “4” (Above Average) in Block V, Overall Performance Rating. In Block XII, Ratee’s Acknowledgement, the applicant’s commander signed electronically, and the verbiage was entered “Member declined to sign.” 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. 1.  While the applicant contends the rater on his report was not his rater, this was simply an oversight in updating the system. His additional rater wrote his 10 May 12 EPR due to the fact the position of the applicant’s Flight Chief was vacant. However, in May 12, a new Flight Chief arrived and assumed rater responsibilities. The applicant’s argument the additional rater remained his supervisor because that is what it said on the EPR shell is only an indication the arrival of his new supervisor had not been properly updated in the system. The rater on his EPR was the correct rater for the purpose of the EPR. 2.  The applicant contends the lack of feedback makes the EPR invalid. However, in accordance with (IAW) AFI 36-2406, Officer and Enlisted Evaluation Systems, “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.” 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 report, and is not sufficient to challenge the accuracy or validity of an evaluation. 3.  The applicant also contends because he did not sign the report it should be removed from his record. However, IAW AFI 36-2406, while the ratee must acknowledge receipt prior to the evaluation becoming a matter of record by signing the signature block, signing the evaluation does not imply concurrence, only acknowledgment. If a member “declined to sign,” the rater or any higher evaluator in the chain-of-command can digitally sign. In the applicant’s case, it cannot be determined whether the applicant did or did not receive this report prior to it becoming a matter of record. Air Force policy is that an evaluation report is accurate as written when it becomes a matter of record. 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. Re-accomplishing a report without the applicant furnishing a new completed report is prohibited. The applicant has not substantiated the contested EPR 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 C. APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: In further support of his request, the applicant submitted a personal statement in which he takes exception to much of the AFPC/DPSID advisory. He reiterates numerous points from his original application, and contends the DPSID comment claiming his EPR rater had been corrected in the system by his CSS is not true--it was actually corrected by a TSgt from the 8th FSS/FSMPM, which shows lack of attention to detail by the advisory writer; the system shows the SMSgt whom he contends is his appropriate EPR rater was making updates in the system during the rating period 1 Nov 12 through 15 Nov 12; the author of the AFPC/DPSID advisory references one outdated and one obsolete AFI, causing the applicant to lose confidence in the review accomplished; and, the Lt Col who put “Member declined to sign” on his EPR falsified an official document because he was never actually given an opportunity to sign. 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 rebuttal response, to the advisory opinion 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 the Board acknowledges the applicant’s rater on the EPR in question was not properly updated in the personnel system in a timely manner to reflect his change of reporting official, the Board does not believe this materially affected the applicant’s overall performance rating or warrants invalidation of the report. According to the documentation provided by the applicant, the additional rater who the applicant contends should be the rater met with the applicant and their commander and explained why the applicant’s performance warranted an overall performance assessment of “4,” and subsequently signed the EPR in question concurring with the final rating of “4.” Once an EPR becomes a matter of record, in order to change the report it is necessary to hear from all of the members of the rating chain. The applicant did not provide the required documentation from the rating chain who signed the report. The Board also notes that in addition to the contentions made in support of his request, the applicant includes numerous accusations of inappropriate behavior in his personal statements. These include: suggesting the Air Force Recruiting Service unfairly downgrades members on their final EPRs when they are returning to their primary career fields; his rater unfairly downgraded the applicant’s overall performance assessment rating in order to increase the rater’s chances of being promoted on the next promotion selection board; the officer serving as the reviewer on his EPR falsified an official document; the AFBCMR was negligent in fulfilling its responsibilities and then attempting to close his case quickly after letting it “sit on someone’s desk for a year;” and, even suggesting that if the AFBCMR denies his case it could be considered retribution. The AFBCMR is not an investigative body. If the applicant sincerely believes the validity of his accusations, the Board strongly urges the applicant to submit his concerns the Office of the Inspector General (IG), where a proper investigation can be conducted. However, concerning his current case, 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 members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2014-03262 in Executive Session on 3 Nov 15, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: Panel Chair Member Member The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2014-03262 was considered: Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 8 Aug 14, w/atchs. Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPSID, dated 22 Sep 15. Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 28 Sep 15.