RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2009-00541 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His AF IMT 911, Senior Enlisted Performance Report (EPR), rendered for the period 14 Aug 05 through 13 Aug 06, be removed from his records. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: The report was both unfair and unjust. There is evidence to support his application under AFI 36-2401, Correcting Officer and Enlisted Evaluation Reports, paragraph A1.5.5., Personality Conflict; and paragraph A1.5.8., Lack of Counseling or Feedback. In support of his request, the applicant provides a copy of the Evaluation Reports and Appeals Board (ERAB) denial email, and his AF IMT 948, Application for Correction/Removal of Evaluation Reports, with a Memorandum dated 23 Dec 08, with 15 attachments. 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 master sergeant (E-7) with a date of rank of 1 Jun 06. He has a total active federal military service date of 23 Apr 91. Applicant’s performance profile follows: PERIOD ENDING OVERALL RATING 22 Dec 98 5 22 Dec 99 5 22 Dec 00 5 22 Dec 01 5 22 Dec 02 5 22 Dec 03 5 13 Aug 04 5 13 Aug 05 5 * 13 Aug 06 4 13 Aug 07 5 29 Apr 08 5 * Contested Report The applicant submitted an appeal to the Evaluation Reports and Appeals Board (ERAB) requesting the report be removed from his records; however, the ERAB was not convinced the contested report was inaccurate or unjust and denied his request. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: HQ AFPC/DPSIDEP recommends denial. DPSIDEP states the evidence the applicant provided does not support his claim. With the exception of the contested report, Attachments 1 through 7 contain documents prepared in 2008 by the applicant appealing his 2006 EPR to his evaluators. Attachment 2 is from the applicant’s rater stating she declines to support his request; that the report is accurate and just and she stands by her original assessment. Attachments 8 through 13 are all character statements from coworkers and peers; none of which were in the applicant’s rating chain. Attachments 14 through 15 included an email where the applicant is requesting feedback, and the feedback itself. However, this took place in Jan 07; therefore, it has no bearing on the 2006 EPR, since it was outside the report period. Disagreements in the work place are not unusual and, in themselves, do not substantiate an evaluator cannot be objective. DPSIDEP opines that subordinates are required to abide by their superior’s decisions. If there was a personality conflict between the applicant and the rater which was of such magnitude the rater could not be objective, the additional rater, or even the first sergeant and commander would have been aware of the situation and would have made any necessary adjustments to the applicant’s EPR; or at least supported the applicant’s appeal request. However, the applicant did not provide any statements from other applicable evaluators. Although the applicant provided several statements from coworkers and peers, none of the statements substantiate there was a strain in the relationship between the applicant and the rater to the point an objective evaluation was impossible. None of the testimonials the applicant submitted state the evaluators could not be objective in their assessment of his duty performance. Nor are the statements convincing of their ability to more accurately assess the applicant’s performance considering they were not the individuals charged with performing this responsibility. Only members in the rating chain can confirm if counseling was provided. 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, e.g. if after a positive feedback session, an evaluator discovers serious problems, he or she must record the problems in the evaluation report even when it disagrees with the previous feedback. There may be occasions when feedback was not provided during a reporting period. 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; and even then HQ AFPC/DPSIDEP would only remove the feedback date and add the statement “Feedback not accomplished IAW AFI 36-2406.” The rater does not state that she never performed feedback; only that she no longer has a copy. This does not substantiate his claim as the rater is not obligated, once a ratee departs, to retain the feedback form itself. The complete DPSIDEP evaluation is at Exhibit B. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant reiterates his contentions. He states in most cases, the additional rater is not in a position to observe the ratee’s daily performance. They generally depend on the supervisor to provide an objective report. At the time the EPR was written, their Chief position was vacant; therefore, Mr. P. was the Acting Chief for the report. His nature, like many others in this type of position, is to sign the report and trust the supervisor. The commander and first sergeant are even less able to observe the situation. In this case, his office was not even on base with the commander and first sergeant. The letter he submitted from SMSgt S. states that she felt his rater’s opinion of him was affected by her close relationship with another co-worker. He and his co-worker did not get along at all and she was very close friends with his rater. There was definitely a perception that their friendship bordered on unprofessional and that his rater did not like him. Although SMSgt S. was not there during the rating period, she was in his rating chain afterwards, and the same things were going on after she arrived, which she stated in her letter. The advisory writer contends the evaluator must confirm he or she did not provide counseling or feedback, and that this directly resulted in an unfair evaluation. This is not realistic. He does not know anyone who would admit to falsifying an official document after the fact. On the EPR used at the time, there was no block for ratee’s concurrence that the feedback actually occurred. The new form has a block for this, which prevents this type of thing from happening. His rater input a date of feedback on the EPR; however, there is no evidence the feedback occurred. Although the rater is not required to keep a copy of the actual feedback, the feedback notices should have been filed in his Personal Information File (PIF) until his Permanent Change of Station (PCS), separation, or retirement. Feedback sessions are required for a reason. One reason is to let the ratee know what is expected of him or her. If there is not a direct correlation between information provided during feedback sessions, then feedback would be pointless. His supervisor asserted she provided him all the necessary feedbacks; however, she has no evidence to back up her claim. It seems, if the rating was fair and just, she would have little concern or problem defending her actions and decisions. Instead she simply summarily dismisses his dispute, his allegations, and has outright ignored his requests. The applicant’s response 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. Sufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of an error or injustice warranting favorable action on the applicant’s request. After a thorough review of the evidence of record, a majority of the Board believes reasonable doubt exists concerning the accuracy and fairness of the contested report and this doubt should be resolved in favor of the applicant. The Board majority is persuaded by the evidence provided that there may have been a personality conflict between the applicant and his rater which was of such magnitude the rater was unable to objectively assess the applicant’s performance. Therefore, in view of the foregoing and in an effort to resolve any potential injustice to the applicant, the Board majority recommends the records be corrected to the extent indicated below. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating to APPLICANT be corrected to show that the AF IMT Form 911, Senior Enlisted Performance Report (MSgt thru CMSgt), rendered for the period 14 August 2005 through 13 August 2006 be declared void and removed from his records. _______________________________________________________________ The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2009-00541 in Executive Session on 9 Jun 09, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: , Panel Chair , Member , Member By a majority vote, the Board recommended approval of the application. Ms. Holloman voted to deny the applicant’s request and elected not to submit a minority report. The following documentary evidence was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 9 Feb 09, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Letter, AFPC/DPSIDEP, dated 26 Mar 09. Exhibit C. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 24 Apr 09. Panel Chair AFBCMR BC-2009-00541 MEMORANDUM FOR THE CHIEF OF STAFF Having received and considered the recommendation of the Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records and under the authority of Section 1552, Title 10, United States Code (70A Stat 116), it is directed that: The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating to APPLICANT, be corrected to show that the AF IMT Form 911, Senior Enlisted Performance Report (MSgt thru CMSgt), rendered for the period 14 August 2005 through 13 August 2006 be, and hereby is, declared void and removed from his records. Director Air Force Review Boards Agency