RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-01668 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) for the period 19 Aug 12 through 18 Aug 13 be corrected to a “5” or removed from his records. APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: He spoke with the operations officer and there is no justification for receiving a “3” rating on his EPR; especially given he has no disciplinary paperwork in his record. The only feedback received after midterm was that he was doing a great job and he should not trust the Technical Sergeants, Staff Sergeants and Airmen below him. He was told before he could out-process from the squadron he had to sign his EPR, but then later found out they did not use it. He was then told by a few of the Master Sergeants working in the back office that there would be repercussions for his flight initiating getting a commander fired. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. STATEMENT OF FACTS: On 29 Nov 93, the applicant entered the Regular Air Force. On 19 Nov 13, he was unavailable to sign his EPR for the period 19 Aug 12 to 18 Aug 13, whereby he received an overall “3” rating. On 30 Nov 14, the applicant was released from active duty and retired effective 1 Dec 14. He was credited with 21 years and 2 days of active service. AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSID recommends denial indicating the applicant has not provided compelling evidence to show that the report was unjust or inaccurate as written. The applicant has not provided sufficient, substantiating documentation or evidence to prove his assertions that the contested evaluation was rendered unfairly or unjustly, and has merely offered his view of events as he believers them to be true. Air Force policy is that an evaluation report is accurate as written when it becomes a matter of record. Additionally, it is considered to represent the rating chain’s best judgment at the time it is rendered. To effectively challenge an evaluation, it is necessary to hear from all the members of the rating chain— not only for support, but also for clarification/explanation. The applicant has failed to provide any information or clarification from all the rating officials on the contested evaluation. It is determined that the report was accomplished in direct accordance with all applicable Air Force policies and procedures. DPSID contends that once a report is accepted for file, only strong evidence to the contrary warrants correction or removal from an individual’s record. The applicant contends that the “3” EPR rendered 18 Aug 13 is unjust based on his claim feedback was never conducted along with no justification being provided to the “3” overall rating. If the applicant was concerned about his lack of feedback, there were avenues to take to resolve the issue. When a required feedback does not take place, IAW AFI 36-2406, Officer and Enlisted Evaluation Systems, paragraph 2.2.1.3., “it is the ratee’s responsibility to notify the rater, and if necessary the rater’s rater, when required or requested feedback did not take place.” In this case, the applicant does not appear to have sought any remedies from the additional rater of the report to obtain feedback if this was not completed. While documented feedback sessions are required, 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), does not invalidate a performance report. Concerning the applicant’s request to have the rating on the contested report changed to a “5,” the applicant has failed to provide a re-accomplished EPR, along with signed memoranda of support/justification from the original evaluators at the time. The governing directive states that appeals requesting to re- accomplish an evaluation will not be considered without the applicant furnishing a new evaluation. It is therefore our recommendation that, for this reason alone, the AFBCMR reject the applicant’s request to amend or change the overall rating. The complete DPSID evaluation is at Exhibit C. APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 17 Apr 15 for review and comment within 30 days (Exhibit D). As of this date, no response has been received by this office. 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 opinion and recommendation of the Air Force office of primary responsibility and adopt its rationale as the basis for our conclusion the applicant has not been the victim of an error of injustice. While we acknowledge the applicant’s request to have his EPR corrected or removed from his records, we do not believe he has demonstrated evidence of an injustice, as compared to others in his similar situation. Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no basis to recommend granting the requested relief. THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of material error or injustice; the application was denied without a personal appearance; and the application will only be reconsidered upon the submission of newly discovered relevant evidence not considered with this application. The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2014-01668 was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 1 Apr 14, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Memorandum, AFPC/DPSID, dated 8 Apr 15. Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 17 Apr 15.