RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2015-01202 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His enlisted performance report (EPR) covering the period 9 May 13 through 8 May 14, be declared void and removed from his record, or the Overall Performance Assessment of “Average (3)” be increased. APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: His rater’s Overall Performance Assessment of “Average (3)” was an injustice. He was deployed when the EPR was written. He completed his Community College of the Air Force (CCAF) degree during the review period, so the degree block on the EPR should be marked “clearly exceeds.” The EPR seemed biased to him. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant initially entered the Regular Air Force on 19 Dec 06. On 14 May 14, the applicant was issued an EPR covering the period 9 May 13 through 8 May 14, on which he was marked “Average (3)” in Block V, Overall Performance Assessment. The applicant’s final five EPR ratings were: Period of Supervision Location Rating Rank 9 May 13 thru 8 May 14* Mountain Home, ID 3 SSgt 10 Sep 12 thru 8 May 13 Mountain Home, ID 4 SSgt 21 Apr 12 thru 9 Sep 12 McDill AFB, FL 5 SrA 22 Apr 11 thru 21 Apr 12 United Arab Emerites 5 SrA 22 Apr 10 thru 21 Apr 11 McDill AFB, FL 5 SrA *-Contested EPR On 17 Jan 15, the applicant was furnished an honorable discharge, and was credited with 8 years and 29 days of total active service. The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the memorandum prepared by the Air Force office of primary responsibility (OPR), which is attached at Exhibit C. AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSID recommends denial indicating there is no evidence of an error or an injustice. Governing directives states that appeals requesting an evaluation be re-accomplished will not be considered without the applicant furnishing a new evaluation. In addition, AFI 36-2406, Officer and Enlisted Evaluation System, states the Evaluation Reports Appeals Board (ERAB) will not consider nor approve requests to change an evaluator’s rating or comments if the evaluator does not support the change. Evaluators bear the responsibility of making fair and equitable assessments at the time reports are written. Thus, 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 failed to provide any information or clarification from the rating officials concerning the contested evaluation, and failed to provide a re-accomplished EPR. The applicant also contends he received great EPRs over the years, but EPR ratings are not erroneous or unjust because they are inconsistent with other ratings received. An evaluation documents performance, conduct, and potential during a specific period. Air Force policy is that an evaluation report is accurate as written when it becomes a matter of record. It is considered to represent the rating chain's best judgment at the time it is rendered. Based on the lack of corroborating evidence, the failure to submit a replacement report, and the presumed legitimacy of the original crafting of the EPR, recommend the report not be voided from the member's permanent record or the Overall Performance Assessment be changed. A complete copy of the AFPC/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 2 Dec 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 AFPC/DPSID and adopt its rationale as the basis for our conclusion the applicant has not been the victim of an error of injustice. 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 members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2015-01202 in Executive Session on 27 Jan 15 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: Panel Chair Member Member The following documentary evidence was considered: Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 3 Mar 15, w/atchs. Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPSID, dated 5 Nov 15. Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 2 Dec 15.