RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF: 			DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2015-04372

						COUNSEL:  NONE

						HEARING DESIRED:  NO 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

Her Enlisted Performance Report (EPR), rendered for the period 8 Jul 08 through 20 Mar 09, be declared void and removed from her military personnel records.

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

Her leadership established written guidance that stated if a supervisor failed to conduct and properly document performance feedbacks and/or counseling in a timely manner, an individual could not be rated less than a “5.”

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

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant is currently serving in the Regular Air Force in the grade of master sergeant (E-7).

The following is an abbreviated resume of the applicant’s available EPR ratings:

	RATING PERIOD	PROMOTION RECOMMENDATION
	30 Sep 15		5
	1 Jul 14		5
	1 Dec 13		5
	15 Feb 13		5
	20 Mar 12		5
	20 Mar 11 		5
	20 Mar 10		5
 *20 Mar 09		4
	7 Jul 08		5
	30 Aug 07		5
	31 Mar 07		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 did not file an appeal through the Evaluation Reports Appeals Board (ERAB).  In addition, the applicant has not provided sufficient, substantiating documentation or evidence to prove her assertions that the contested evaluation was rendered unfairly or unjustly.  Air Force policy is that an evaluation report is accurate as written when it becomes a matter of record.  Furthermore, it is considered to represent 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 failed to provide any information or clarification from all the rating officials on the contested evaluation.  The burden of proof is on the applicant. 

The applicant contends that the "4" EPR is unjust based on her claim that feedback was never conducted.  The applicant states that the guidance within her unit said that if supervisors failed to conduct and properly document feedback in a timely manner, an individual could not be rated less than a “5.”  In accordance with AFI 36-2406, Officer and Enlisted Evaluation Systems, 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.”

Further, paragraph 2.6.2 states that “since the ratee shares the responsibility to ensure feedback sessions occur, a feedback notice is also sent to the ratee through his unit concurrently with the notice sent to the rater.  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.”

Additionally, paragraph A2.5.8, states that “while current Air Force policy requires performance feedback for personnel, a direct correlation between information provided during feedback sessions and the assessments on evaluation reports does not necessarily exist.”  Only members in the rating chain can confirm if counseling and/or feedback was actually provided; whether formal or informal, whether verbal or in writing.  In this case, the applicant has not provided any relevant documents to prove this allegation.

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 9 May 16 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 not 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.  In this respect, we note this Board is the highest administrative level of appeal within the Air Force.  As such, an applicant must first exhaust all available avenues of administrative relief provided by existing law or regulations prior to seeking relief before this Board, as required by the governing Air Force Instruction.  The Air Force office of primary responsibility has reviewed this application and indicated there is an available avenue of administrative relief the applicant has not first pursued.  In view of this, we find this application is not ripe for adjudication at this level as there exists a subordinate level of appeal that has not first been depleted.  Therefore, in view of the above, we find no basis to recommend granting the relief sought in this application.

THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:

The applicant be notified that all available avenues of administrative relief have not been exhausted; and the application will only be reconsidered upon submission of documentary evidence indicating that said avenues of administrative relief have been exhausted.  

The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2015-04372 in Executive Session on 13 Dec 16 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

				    , Panel Chair
					   , Member
				  , Member

The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2015-04372 was considered:

	Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 7 Oct 15, w/atchs.
	Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
	Exhibit C.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPSID, dated 6 May 16.
	Exhibit D.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 9 May 16.

Pursuant to paragraph 1 of AFI 36-2603 (Title 32 Code of Federal Regulations, Part 865.1), it is certified that a quorum was present at the Board's review and deliberations, and that the foregoing is a true and complete record of the Board's proceedings in the above entitled matter.