RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2011-04618 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her AF Form 911, Enlisted Performance Report (MSgt thru CMSgt) (EPR), for the period of 1 July 2007 thru 30 June 2008 be removed from her records. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: The period of performance on her 2007 and 2008 EPRs reflect incorrect periods of supervision as they were both submitted four to six months after the respective closeout dates. The late submittal dates of these EPRs hindered her promotion eligibility to the grade of Senior Master Sergeant, (E-8), because her records were late getting to the promotion board. Even though a feedback date was stated on her 2007 EPR, she did not receive any performance feedback from her former rater during the two years she worked under her supervision. Her supervisor gave her first feedback session approximately 60 days prior to the closeout of her 2008 EPR and after they had a mutual disagreement on a project. Due to a personality conflict between her and her supervisor, the 2008 report incorrectly summarizes her performance during the reporting period. In support of her request, the applicant provides a personal statement, a copy of the contested EPR, a copy of her AF Form 932, Performance Feedback Worksheet (MSgt thru CMSgt), a copy of a package submitted to her commander, with attachments, supporting memorandums and emails, and related documents extracted from her personnel records. 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 from 29 September 1987 to 30 April 2010. She was progressively promoted to the rank of Master Sergeant (MSgt), (E-7), with Date of Rank and Effective Date of 1 December 2001. She was retired from active duty with an honorable characterization of service and credited with 22 years, 7 months, and 2 days of active duty service. The applicant’s EPR profile as a Senior Noncommissioned Officer is listed below: PERIOD ENDING OVERALL EVALUATION *30 June 2008 4B 30 June 2007 5B 30 June 2006 5B 30 June 2005 5B 30 June 2004 5B *Contested Report The applicant did not file an appeal through the Evaluation Report Appeals Board (ERAB) under the provisions of AFI 36-2406, Correcting Officer and Enlisted Evaluation Reports, due to the fact that she is in retired status and no longer authorized to file an ERAB appeal. ________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSID recommends denial. DPSID states after a careful review of the applicant’s performance record, they are unable to find any “incorrect period” as the applicant alleges. They observed no gaps in performance reporting, and the contested evaluation (which was her final EPR on active duty) began the day following the close-out of her prior report. The applicant also contends that the late submission of the contested report caused her EPR to be late in getting to the evaluation board. The applicant has not provided any evidence within her appeal that this report did in fact not make it into her promotion selection record in time for the promotion evaluation board. The applicant further makes the claim that the only feedback she received during the rating period was the result of a mutual disagreement between herself and her rater. Whether or not this was the case is irrelevant, because the rater did in fact perform the feedback during the rating period, and duly recorded the date on the contested report. The applicant has not provided any documentation to prove her assertion that the feedback was rendered improperly. The applicant finally alleges that she did not receive any feedback from this rater prior to this feedback session for a period of almost two years. This allegation is also irrelevant, as the following guidance from AFI 36-2406 paragraph 2.10. Failure of Rater to Conduct or Document a Feedback Session, applies: “While documented feedback sessions are required by this Instruction, 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 or (for officers) PRF.” They presume that in the absence of any documentation to disprove otherwise, the rater did properly supervise and provided the proper feedback to the applicant, and thus, they do not find this specific allegation to have any merit. In addition, 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 EPR was rendered, they do not believe these individuals were in a better position to evaluate her duty performance than those who were specifically assigned that responsibility. Therefore, their opinions are not germane to the applicant’s appeal. Air Force policy is that an evaluation report is accurate as written when it becomes a matter of record. To effectively challenge an EPR, it is necessary to hear from all members of the rating chain, not only for support, but also for clarification/explanation. The applicant has failed to provide any information/support from the rating chain of record on the contested EPR. In the absence of information from evaluators, official substantiation of error or injustice from the Inspector General or Equal Opportunity and Treatment is appropriate, but not provided in this case. Therefore, although the applicant alludes to an investigation, one could not be located to support this claim. It appears the report was accomplished in direct accordance with applicable regulations. The complete AFPC/DPSID evaluation is at Exhibit C. AFPC/DPSOE recommends denial. DPSOE states the contested report was used in the promotion cycle. The applicant received an EPR score of 128.25 (out of 135.00), a total score of 556.75, and the score required for selection in her Air Force Specialty Code (AFSC) was 645.41. The 2009 Senior Noncommissioned Officer (SNCO) Promotion Evaluation Board convened 2 through 20 February 2009. The applicant’s EPR was filed into the Master Personnel File on 6 January 2009, and was marked with the board cycle ID and a selection folder number. This, with the fact that the applicant received a board score, verifies that the contested EPR was seen by the Board. Had the report not been in the applicant’s SNCO selection folder, she would have been considered non-weighable, her record would not have met the Board, and she would not have received a board score. DPSOE further states AFPC/DPSID has reviewed the case and found the contested report to be accurate as rendered. They therefore recommend denial of supplemental promotion consideration. The complete DPSOE evaluation is at Exhibit D. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on 1 March 2012 for review and comment within 30 days (Exhibit E). To date, this office has not received a 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. 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 regarding her request for removal of the EPR rendered for the period 1 July 2007 through 30 June 2008 from her record. Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, 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 BC-2011-04618 in Executive Session on 17 July 2012, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: The following documentary evidence was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149 dated 11 November 2011, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Applicant’s Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPSID, dated 24 January 2012. Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/DPSOE, dated 2 February 2012. Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 1 March 2012.