RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBERS: BC-2010-04661 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His Enlisted Performance Report (EPR), rendered for the period 16 May 1995 through 15 May 1996, be voided and removed from his records. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: The contested EPR was written with malice and included statements which prejudiced his reenlistment consideration. The contested EPR omitted a wealth of commendable achievements and accomplishments during the evaluation period. Mandatory Feedback sessions were never afforded to him, even after numerous verbal and written requests were submitted to his superiors. A statement in his EPR referenced a Letter of Reprimand (LOR) as feedback. The LOR was given to him during an ongoing investigation which was later determined to be inconclusive. In support of his appeal, the applicant provides a personal statement; a DD Form 293, Application for the Review of Discharge from the Armed Force of the United States; numerous memorandums for record, letters of support, letters of appreciation, character references, and excerpts of EPRs. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. _________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant is a former member of the Regular Air Force who served on active duty from 7 June 1983 to 1 November 1996. He was progressively promoted to the grade of staff sergeant (E-5) effective 1 September 1992. After receiving three Letters of Reprimand, the applicant received a referral EPR for the period 16 May 1995 to 15 May 1996. The report indicated the applicant did not perform with consistency, reliability, or conduct of his grade or seniority; and, that he was not recommended for retention or advancement. The applicant acknowledged receipt of the referral EPR and submitted a statement in his own behalf. The applicant was honorably released from active duty effective 1 November 1996 for completion of required active service. He served 13 years, 4 months, and 25 days on active duty. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSID recommends denial. DPSID states the applicant has not proven there was an injustice or error with the contested EPR. Air Force policy is that an evaluation report is accurate as written when it becomes a matter of record. In order to effectively and successfully challenge the validity of an EPR, it is necessary to hear from all the members of the rating chain – not only for support, but also for clarification or explanation. The applicant has failed to provide any information/support from the rating chain on the contested EPR. In addition, information from the evaluators; or, official substantiation of an error or injustice from the Inspector General (IG) or Military Equal Opportunity offices would be appropriate; however, not provided in this case. It appears the report was accomplished in direct accordance with applicable regulations. Only strong evidence to the contrary warrants correction or removal from an individual’s record. The burden of proof is on the applicant and in this case the applicant has not substantiated the contested report was not rendered in good faith by all evaluators based on the knowledge available at the time. Without statements from the evaluators, they can only conclude the EPR is accurate as written. The applicant contends that performance feedback sessions were never afforded to him even after verbal and written requests to his superiors. In addition, he mentions that a statement was added on his EPR indicating that an LOR sufficed as feedback and that another statement was added referencing an LOR was given to him during an ongoing investigation. However, the actual statement from the rater was “I gave numerous verbal feedback sessions and member [was] given three letters of reprimand in lieu of other documented feedback [for]: unauthorized absence (Sep 95), disrespect to an officer (Jan 66), and unauthorized phone calls (infraction Mar 96, LOR issued Jun 96 after investigation).” Therefore, it appears that feedback was provided to the applicant. The only evidence provided showing that feedback was requested by the applicant, was not until the contested report closed out. Only members in the rating chain can confirm if counseling was provided, whether formal or informal, verbal or in writing, and it appears the rater did provide the applicant feedback during the reporting period. While documented feedback sessions are required, they do not replace informal day-to-day feedback in accordance with Air Force Instruction 36-2401. The lack of formal feedback is not sufficient to challenge the accuracy or justness of a report. The complete DPSID evaluation is at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Air Force policy regarding performance feedback is plain, and the supervisor’s failure to follow through with mandatory performance feedback sessions is clear. His supervisor clearly failed to conduct performance feedback critical to the supervision process. To suggest that any casual daily (undocumented) comments throughout a rating period can replace policy for three organized verbal and documented mandatory feedback sessions is “ludicrous.” Furthermore, to suggest a computer generated Letter of Reprimand could possibly replace a formal and ongoing process of communication is impractical. When a supervisor does not communicate his expectations, there is no way for the subordinate to measure the supervisor’s satisfaction; therefore, the subordinate does not know what to fix. The applicant’s complete rebuttal, with attachments, 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 not timely filed; however, it is in the interest of justice to excuse the failure to timely file. 3. Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of error or injustice. The applicant states he believes the contested EPR was written with malice and included statements which prejudiced his reenlistment consideration. He also indicates that a “wealth of commendable achievements” accomplished during the rating period were omitted and he was not provided formal performance feedback. We reviewed the complete evidence of record, to include the statements of support provided to the applicant in his original efforts to contest this report. We do not find sufficient evidence to support the applicant’s contention the contested EPR was written with malice. We note that the statement provided by a former commander confirms that he agreed to delay the decision regarding the applicant’s reenlistment to allow him the opportunity to “resolve his personal problems;” but the statement also confirms that the applicant’s supervisors believed the applicant’s performance had deteriorated and that the applicant himself indicated he was experiencing family problems at the time and was receiving professional counseling. Although the applicant purports to show that this commander may have viewed his reenlistment more favorably, given the commander’s retirement and the change of command, there is no way to know for sure. We would note that although it appears there may have been extenuating circumstances regarding the issues that caused the applicant’s report to be downgraded, nevertheless, the facts appear to support the basis for the downgrade. Despite the applicant’s assertions of unfair treatment, we are not persuaded by the evidence before us. Regarding the lack of formal feedback, we note the contested report confirms that feedback was not accomplished in accordance with AFI 36-2403, but does note the applicant received three letters of reprimand and numerous verbal feedback sessions and while the applicant does not consider this sufficient to make him aware of the standard to be met, we would disagree. In our view, these adverse actions should have given the applicant some idea of improvements he needed to make. Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no basis to recommend granting the relief sought in this application. 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 issue involved. Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorably considered. _________________________________________________________________ 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 AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2010-04661 in Executive Session on 18 August 2011, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2010-04661 was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 7 Dec 10, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPSID, dated 26 Mar 11. Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 11 May 11. Exhibit D. Letter, Applicant, dated 9 Jun 11, w/atchs.