RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2011-01820 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 1. His AF Form 911, Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) (MSgt thru CMSgt), rendered for the period 21 Jun 08 through 20 Jun 09 be declared void and removed from his records. 2. He be given supplemental promotion consideration for all affected chief master sergeant (CMSgt) promotion cycles. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: The EPR was unjust and does not accurately assess his performance during the reporting period and the mandatory mid- term feedback was not accomplished in accordance with AFI 36- 2406, Officer and Enlisted Evaluation Systems. In support of his request, the applicant provides a personal statement, copies of his EPRs, memorandums, and rater’s statement of recommendation. 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 (SMSgt). The applicant filed an appeal through the Evaluation Report Appeals Board (ERAB) under the provisions of AFI 36-2401, Correcting Officer and Enlisted Evaluation Reports, however, the ERAB was not convinced the contested report was inaccurate or unjust and disapproved the applicant’s request. The applicant’s EPR profile as a SMSgt is listed below. PERIOD ENDING OVERALL EVALUATION 20 Jun 08 5 *20 Jun 09 4 EPR PROFILE CONTINUED: 20 Jun 10 5 *Contested Report The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the letter prepared by the appropriate office of the Air Force, which is attached at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSID recommends denial. DPSID states the applicant has not provided any support from his rating chain stating the feedback did not occur. Only members in the rating chain can confirm if counseling was provided. Moreover, while current Air Force policy requires performance feedback for personnel, a direct correlation between information provided during the feedback sessions and the assessments on evaluation reports does not necessarily exist. For example, if after a positive feedback session, an evaluator discovers serious problems, he or she must record the problem 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. Furthermore, the lack of counseling or feedback, by itself, is not sufficient to challenge the accuracy or justness of a report. Evaluators must confirm that they did not provide counseling or feedback, and that this directly resulted in an unfair evaluation. Specific information was not supplied about the unfair evaluation so a reasoned judgment on the appeal could have been reached. The applicant provided a memorandum from the rater on the contested report; however, the memorandum from the rater does not address any of the allegations that occurred during the reporting period and it is actually a support letter to help him get selected for employment elsewhere. The applicant provided three additional memorandums of support from individuals outside the rating chain; however, AFI 36-2401, Correcting Officer and Enlisted Evaluation Reports, states 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. While those individuals are entitled to their opinions of the applicant’s duty performance and the events occurring around the time the EPR was rendered, we do not believe they were in a better position to evaluate his duty performance than those who were specifically assigned that responsibility. Therefore, their opinions are not germane to his appeal. The complete DPSID evaluation is at Exhibit C. HQ AFPC/DPSOE defers to AFPC/DPSID. DPSOE states the first time the applicant’s EPR was to be used in the promotion process was cycle 09E9 to CMSgt. However, his record did not meet the board due to his non-weighable status (missing top EPR). In order to compete for promotion, you have to be eligible and your record must be weighable. Supplemental promotion consideration is granted on a case-by-case basis. The applicant was considered for cycle 09E9 during the Jan 10 senior noncommissioned officer (SNCO) Supplemental Evaluation Board and rendered a non-select. He then was considered and non-selected for promotion to CMSgt during the 10E9 Central SNCO Evaluation Board. His EPR score was 128.92 (135 max score); board score was 322.50 (450 max score); total promotion score was 575.92, and the score required for selection in his Air Force Specialty Code (AFSC) was 619.00. The applicant did not pursue a change to this EPR through the ERAB until 1 Feb 11, well after the boards convened for cycles 09E9 (Oct 09) and 10E9 (Oct 10). 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 29 Jul 11 for review and comment within 30 days (Exhibit E). 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 careful notice of the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of the case; however, after a thorough review of the evidence of record and his submission, we are not persuaded that the EPR should be removed from his records. His concerns are duly noted; however, we do not find the file as presented sufficiently persuasive to override the rationale provided by the Air Force offices of primary responsibility (OPRs). The Board looked at the endorsements included in the file, and those endorsements are not taken lightly. The letters, however, do not state what the writers know now that they did not know then. The Board does not have all the information right now to assess the proper weight to give these after-the-fact endorsements in contrast with the real-time EPR. Because of this lack of information, we are not persuaded that the contested report is not a true and accurate assessment of his performance during the specified reporting period or that the rating he received was in error or contrary to the provisions of the governing instruction. As previously stated by DPSID, to effectively challenge an EPR, it is necessary to hear from all the members of the rating chain, not only for support, but also for clarification/explanation. As of the date of this Board review, the applicant has not provided information/support from his rating chain on the contested EPR to explain whether and why there was an error and what the correct information or rating should have been. If he were to provide such evidence from the rater, additional rater or reviewer, we would be willing to reconsider his request. 4. Regarding his request for supplemental promotion consideration, since we find no error with the contested report, no basis exists upon which to direct supplemental promotion consideration. Therefore, we agree with the opinions and recommendations of the Air Force OPRs and adopt their rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice. 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-2011-01820 in Executive Session on 13 Sep 11, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: Panel Chair Member Member The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2011-01820 was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 5 May 11, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Applicant’s Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. HQ AFPC/DPSID, Letter, dated 30 Jun 11. Exhibit D. HQ AFPC/DPSOE, Letter, dated 26 Jul 11. Exhibit E. SAF/MRBR, Letter, dated 29 Jul 11. PANEL CHAIR