RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBERS: BC-2011-03471 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 1. Her Enlisted Performance Report (EPR), rendered for the period 1 July 2007 through 30 June 2008, be voided and removed from her records. 2. She be considered for promotion to chief master sergeant (E-9) through the supplemental promotion process. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: The contested EPR was written based on unfair and prejudicial treatment as a result of a personality conflict perpetrated by her then rater. The report does not accurately reflect her performance during the rating period. Her rater failed to consider meaningful information from her operational chain of command who directly supervised her day-to-day duties. In addition, her rater failed to provide proper feedback during the rating period. In support of her appeal, the applicant provides a personal statement; and, copies of the contested EPR, Evaluation Report Appeal Board (ERAB) decision, numerous electronic communications, Intra-service Support Agreement documentation, proposed EPR documentation, Individual Fact Sheet for Chief Master Sergeant (11E9) and Senior Master Sergeant (12E8) Promotion Cycles, Resume package, several letters of support, Performance Feedback Worksheet (PFW), and a Meritorious Service Medal (MSM) certificate. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. _________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant is currently serving on active duty in the grade of senior master sergeant (E-8). The following is a resume of the applicant’s EPR profile: PERIOD ENDING PROMOTION RECOMMENDATION 2 Jan 02 (TSgt) 5 11 Jun 02 5 11 Jun 03 (MSgt) 5 14 May 04 5 14 May 05 5 5 Jan 06 5 5 Jan 07 (SMSgt) 5 30 Jun 07 5 30 Jun 08* 5 30 Jun 09 5 30 Jun 10 5 30 Jun 11 5 * Contested report On 4 May 2009, the ERAB considered and denied the applicant’s request to void and remove her EPR rendered for the period 1 July 2007 through 30 June 2008. The remaining relevant facts, extracted from the applicant’s military service records, are contained in the evaluation by the Air Force office of primary responsibility at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSID recommends denial. DPSID states the applicant provides no evidence to substantiate her claim that her rater failed to consider her operational command’s performance inputs. Furthermore, it is the rating chain’s prerogative to decide what to document or not to document on any given report. In regard to the applicant’s claim that her rater did not provide her proper feedback, 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. Lack of counseling or feedback, by itself, is not sufficient to challenge the accuracy or justness of a report. Evaluators must confirm they did not provide counseling or feedback, and that this directly resulted in an unfair evaluation. While documented feedback sessions are required by Air Force Instruction (AFI) 36- 2406, 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 PFW, will not, of itself, invalidate any subsequent performance report. Furthermore, the responsibility for ensuring a feedback session takes place does not rest solely with the rater, since the ratee is required to notify the rater and, if necessary, the rater’s rater when a feedback session is not provided. The applicant has not provided factual, specific, and substantial information from credible officials and is based on firsthand observation or knowledge. While other individuals outside the rating chain are entitled to their opinions of the applicant’s duty performance and the events occurring around the time the contested EPR was rendered, DPSID does not believe they were in a better position to evaluate the applicant’s duty performance than those who were specifically assigned that responsibility. AFI 36-2406, Attachment 1, paragraph A1.3, indicates the most effective evidence consists of statements from the evaluators who signed the report, or from other individuals in the rating chain, when the report was signed. However, in this case, statements from these evaluators are conspicuously absent. Without the benefit of these statements, DPSID can only conclude 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 knowledge available at the time. The complete DPSID evaluation is at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: After reviewing the Air Force advisory opinion and the governing instructions, she realizes that the more appropriate basis for her appeal is duty related conflict. While she understands that evidence from her rater could assist the Board in determining whether there were any personality conflicts, she respectively submits that the issue of whether there was a conflict of interest in her rating chain is an objective question which can be answered with objective evidence. She did attempt to obtain a letter from her rater; however, she declined. Two others in her rating chain of command have since retired from the military. Air Force Instruction 36-2401, Attachment A1.2, lists only three requirements for the documentation that should support an appeal: credible, relevant, and believable. The documentation she has provided satisfies all three of these criteria. The documentation includes correspondence documenting duty related conflict between her and her rater’s different positions, as well as letters from those in the specific position to evaluate her during the rating period in question. With her rebuttal, she is providing additional documentation to support the conflicts arising from her position as a Career Field Manager and her position as the Functional Assignments Manager. Although duty related conflict is not cited as a common basis for appeal, the current evaluation system recognizes that there are positions where conflicts arise. The documentation she provided with her original submission makes it clear that the requirements of her duties as a Personnelist were at odds with her goals as the Paralegal Career Field Manager. Not only was her rater unfamiliar with the requirements of her duties as a Personnelist, she was rated against two individuals performing paralegal duties and who were not geographically separated from their rater. The failure to rate her against her peers performing the same duties resulted in an inequitable stratification scheme. The applicant’s complete rebuttal, with attachments, is at Exhibit D. _________________________________________________________________ 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. We took notice of the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of the case; however, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of the Air Force office of primary responsibility and adopt its rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice. We note the applicant’s contention that she was the victim of duty related conflict; however, we find insufficient evidence to void the contested report based on this assertion. While she provides letters of support from her operational chain of command in an attempt to document her claims of unfair treatment, we note that she has not provided any letters of support from her administrative chain of command that was charged with evaluating her performance for the period in question. 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-2011-03471 in Executive Session on 7 June 2012, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: The following documentary evidence was considered in connection with AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2011-03471: Exhibit A. DD Forms 149, dated 26 Aug 11, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Letter, AFPC/DPSID, dated 14 Nov 11. Exhibit C. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 23 Nov 11. Exhibit d. Letter, Applicant, dated 21 Dec 11.