RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBERS: BC-2011-02070 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His Enlisted Performance Report (EPR), rendered for the period 13 March 2007 through 13 November 2008, be voided and removed from his permanent record. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: He received no counseling or feedback during the rating period in question. Also, there was a change of reporting official (CRO) action performed two weeks prior to the close-out date of his initial report, which in effect backdated the starting date of supervision to a date which was not accurate in fact. In addition, he was deployed during the time the CRO took place and was never provided any proof or notification that it had occurred. Finally, there are a number of clerical errors on the contested report, which is another reason the report should be voided. In support of his appeal, the applicant provides copies of a CRO worksheet, the contested EPR, an EPR appeal, electronic communications, and documentation in support of his deployment. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. _________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant is currently a member of the Regular Air Force serving in the grade of staff sergeant (E-5). The following is a resume of the applicant’s EPR profile, since 2008: PERIOD ENDING PROMOTION RECOMMENDATION 13 Nov 08 (A1C)* 3 13 Nov 09 (SrA) 5 25 Jul 10 5 25 Jul 11 5 * Contested report The remaining relevant facts, extracted from the applicant’s military service records, are contained in the evaluations by the Air Force offices of primary responsibility at Exhibits B and C. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSID recommends denial. DPSID states the applicant did file an appeal through the Evaluation Report Appeals Board (ERAB) under the provisions of Air Force Instruction (AFI) 36-2401, Correcting Officer and Enlisted Evaluation Reports; however, the ERAB was not convinced the contested report was inaccurate or unjust. Whether the applicant had a different rater during the rating period other than the rater indicated on the contested report, or that any backdating occurred is irrelevant because in accordance with AFI 36-2406, 3.2.5, the unit commander or appropriate staff officer determines the rating chain for assigned personnel based on Air Force policy. In the absence of any official substantiation of error or injustice from the Inspector General or Military Equal Opportunity and Treatment, they presume that any CRO actions taken by the applicant’s chain of command were proper and in accordance with Air Force policy and procedures. Their office finds that in absence of any evidence to prove otherwise that the indicated rater had an appropriate number of day’s supervision (262 days) and properly rendered the EPR. In regard to the applicant’s claim that he received a lack of feedback or counseling, while documented feedback sessions are required by AFI 36-2401, 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), will not, of itself, invalidate any subsequent performance report. In the applicant’s case, the feedback date is clearly annotated on the form, and the applicant has not proved, through his submitted evidence that the feedback date as recorded did not in fact take place or that no day-to-day feedback occurred. In absence of any evidence to the contrary, they presume the rater did conduct the feedback as recorded on the EPR as well as any needed further counseling and/or feedback; therefore, they find the applicant’s allegation to be without merit. In the course of researching the facts in this case, they obtained a signed Commander Directed Investigation (CDI), in which the investigating officer was tasked to investigate the propriety of the contested EPR, as prepared by the applicant’s rating chain. The results of the CDI were that the overall “3” rating given to the applicant accurately depicted the applicant’s duty performance during the rating period. The applicant notes that the wrong social security number, skill level, and number of day’s supervision were placed on the EPR. DPSID has administratively corrected the wrong social security number and number of day’s supervision; however, the applicant has not provided any evidence within his case that would substantiate he was occupying a duty position within the unit that would reflect a higher skill level than “3P031” as of the close-out date of the contested EPR. In absence of any evidence, they conclude that “3P031” was the proper Duty Air Force Specialty Code (AFSC) for the duty position he was occupying, and that it was annotated correctly on the EPR. It is DPSID’s opinion that the contested EPR is accurate as written. Once a report is accepted for file, only strong evidence to the contrary warrants correction or removal from an individual’s record. 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. The complete DPSID evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit B. AFPC/DPSOE defers to the DPSID advisory opinion concerning the validity of the contested EPR and note the first time it was considered in the promotion process was promotion cycle 10E5 to the grade of staff sergeant. The applicant’s EPR score was 109.42, his total score was 255.92, and the score required for selection in his AFSC was 270.00 (-14.08 points). Should the Board void the contested report as requested, providing he is otherwise eligible, the applicant will be entitled to supplemental promotion consideration for promotion cycle 10E5. His EPR score would increase to 135.00 (+25.58 points) and he would become a select. As a matter of information, the applicant was selected for promotion to staff sergeant during promotion cycle 11E5 with a date of rank of 1 December 2011. The complete DPSOE evaluation is at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on 29 February 2012 for review and comment within 30 days (Exhibit D). As of this date, this office has received no response. _________________________________________________________________ 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 error or injustice. After reviewing all of the evidence provided, we are not persuaded that the contested report is an inaccurate depiction of the applicant’s performance and demonstrated potential for the period in question. In the rating process, each evaluator is required to assess a ratee’s performance, honestly and to the best of their ability. In judging the merits of this case, we took note of the applicant’s assertion that he did not receive counseling or feedback. However, we agree with the assessment of AFPC/DPSID that he has not presented evidence that the contested EPR was not rendered in good faith. With regard to the administrative errors identified by the applicant, we note that AFPC/DPSID has administratively corrected his Social Security Number and the number of days supervised; however, due to the absence of evidence to indicate the applicant was occupying a higher skill level, the skill level was not changed. We are in agreement with their assessment. Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no 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 AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2011-02070 in Executive Session on 28 June 2012, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: The following documentary evidence was considered in connection with AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2011-02070: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 20 May 11, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Letter, AFPC/DPSID, dated 17 Jan 12, w/atchs. Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPSOE, dated 3 Feb 12. Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 29 Feb 12.