RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2008-03322 INDEX CODE: 111.02 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) rendered for the period 30 January 2007 through 16 September 2007 be voided and removed from his records. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: There was insufficient supervision, an inaccurate rater designation, and a lack of performance feedback during the period of the contested EPR. In addition, the contested EPR was orchestrated by his former Military Personnel Flight (MPF) Superintendent as direct retribution for a professional disagreement he had with her in June 2007. In support of his request, the applicant submits a copy of his appeal package to the Evaluation Reports Appeal Board (ERAB), a copy of the contested report, a copy of his EPR closing 29 January 2007, copies of leave forms, and several copies of electronic communications concerning his EPR. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. _________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: The Military Personnel Data System (MilPDS) indicates the applicant has a Total Active Federal Commissioned Service Date of 29 November 1985, and a projected date of separation of 14 May 2013. He was promoted to the grade of senior master sergeant effective and with a date of rank of 1 December 2004. On 20 May 2008, the applicant submitted an appeal to the ERAB requesting to void his EPR closing 16 September 2007. The ERAB denied his appeal for relief. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSID recommends denying the applicant’s request to void the contested EPR. DPSID indicates that upon review of the evidence, the applicant’s rater did have enough supervision to render the report, although the number of days of supervision should be corrected to reflect 144 versus 150. According to MilPDS, the rater was accurately designated with an effective date of 26 April 2007. In reference to the applicant’s contention of lack of feedback, they note the rater indicates that feedback was provided verbally. In accordance with Air Force Instruction 36- 2406, the rater’s failure to conduct a required or requested feedback session, or document the session on a Performance Feedback Worksheet, will not invalidate any subsequent performance report. DPSID states that the applicant has not provided any evidence or cited any examples to clearly show how the conflict between him and the MPF Superintendent unfavorably biased the rater or prevented her from preparing a fair and accurate report. Although he submitted certified email to support his claim, there is no evidence to substantiate his allegation of coercion or influence by superiors. The complete DPSID evaluation is at Exhibit B. AFPC/JA recommends denying the applicant’s request to void and remove the contested report. JA states that given the rater’s 144 days of supervision, the respective duties of the applicant and his rater (she being the officer in charge of the same section over which he served as superintendent), and the statement by the rater that she did provide performance feedback face-to-face, they find the applicant has failed to show an injustice or error. In addition, in spite of his allegations of improper motive on the part of the squadron superintendent, he has failed to provide evidence that the supervisor’s views unjustly colored the evaluation by the rater. The applicant provided strong evidence that while the rater clearly was receiving suggestions from other members of the leadership team, she was not prepared to endorse every opinion offered to her. Her comment to the effect that she was “pushing back” on certain points and that it was “still her report,” clearly shows her ability to establish her own assessment of the applicant’s performance without being overcome by the suggestions of her squadron leaders. In fact, although the rater did have sufficient days of supervision to complete the report, she certainly had not been the applicant’s supervisor for the entire reporting period; therefore, she would have naturally sought the suggestions of other leaders in the squadron and would have given their suggestions considerable weight. The complete JA opinion is at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant replies that even though DPSID and JA indicate that supervision under his rater began on 26 April 2007, he has provided copies of leave forms and an electronic communication indicating otherwise. His rater did not have the required 120 days of supervision to write an evaluation; nor did she have the 144 days of supervision suggested by DPSID and JA. The source they use, MilPDS, only provides a backdated supervision effective date that was submitted by the former MPF Superintendent. Simply put, you cannot and should not backdate supervision effective dates after a ratee has been working under the guidance, direction, and supervision of another rater. He contends the Performance Feedback was not provided by his rater as indicated in Section V of the EPR – formally or verbally. Both DPSID and JA concluded that verbal feedback was provided on 26 April 2007, simply because that was what the form indicates. JA goes on to say that because he did not check either the Yes or No block indicating feedback was accomplished during the reporting period and upon receipt of the report, he somehow “tacitly” agreed that feedback was performed. What both agencies fail to report was that the version of AF Form 911 in this case had an electronic flaw in that, ratees were unable to check either block at the time he electronically signed the report. The Commander Support Staff (CSS) was aware of the flaw in the form and indicated that AFPC had advised them that a mark in the block was not required. He has provided an email he sent to his rater which stated “For the record, my response would have been No.” He still contends that this injustice was orchestrated by his former MPF Superintendent as retribution for their disagreements. Both his rater and additional rater specifically told him that the MPF Superintendent wanted this particular report to be marked down and not get Senior Rater endorsement. His rater and additional rater provided statements validating his claims. There is no other reason for them to validate his claims if they weren’t true. He is a 23-year career personnelist. He has experience in the Airman Performance Reports and EPR programs. With that experience, it is hard for him to fathom how DPSID and JA could recommend the AFBCMR deny his request to void the contested report. Even if the Board approves his request, he is still left with a hole in his record for the reporting period which will be questioned for years to come. The applicant’s rebuttal is at Exhibit E. _________________________________________________________________ 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 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 showing the contested report is an inaccurate depiction of his performance during the rating period in question, we find no compelling 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 this application in Executive Session on 5 February 2009, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: The following documentary evidence was considered in connection with AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2008-03322: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 3 Sep 08, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Letter, AFPC/DPSID, dated 17 Sep 08. Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/JA, dated 6 Nov 08. Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 21 Nov 08. Exhibit E. Applicant’s Rebuttal, dated 12 Jan 09, w/atch.