RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2011-04746 COUNSEL: HEARING DESIRED: YES ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: The Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) rendered for the period 17 Jan 2010 through 27 Oct 2010, be declared void. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: He was not given an initial or midterm feedback. Once the reporting period ended, his supervisor gave him an EPR with a closeout date of 27 Oct 2010. On that same day he also gave him an initial and midterm feedback. His rater did this in an attempt to "cover his tracks," and thus ensure that a feedback date was technically given and recorded on the EPR during the inclusive period of the report. In support of his request, the applicant provides memorandums from his first sergeant and rater, a memorandum to his first sergeant and Chief Enlisted Manager, his Application for Correction/Removal of Evaluation Reports, the Final decision from the Evaluations Report and Appeal Board (ERAB), his Performance Report Rebuttal, and AF Forms 931, Performance Feedback Worksheet (AB thru TSgt). The applicant's complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. ______________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant is currently serving in the Regular Air Force in the grade of staff sergeant (SSgt, E-5), having assumed the grade effective with a date of rank of 1 Apr 2006. The following is a resume of the applicant’s performance profile: Period Ending OVERALL EVALUATION 20 Apr 2003 5 20 Apr 2004 5 16 Jan 2005 5 16 Jan 2006 5 16 Jan 2007 4 16 Jan 2008 5 16 Jan 2009 5 16 Jan 2010 5 * 27 May 2010 4 31 May 2011 4 *Contested Report The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are described in the letters prepared by the Air Force offices of primary responsibility, at Exhibits C and D. ________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: HQ AFPC/DPSOE defers to the recommendation of HQ AFPC/DPSID concerning the validity of the report. However, they will address the supplemental promotion issue should the Board grant the request. The first time the contested report was used in the promotion process was cycle 11E6. The applicant's EPR score was 125.40, his total score was 305.21, and the score required for selection in his AFSC was 305.67. Should the Board remove the report, it would increase the EPR score to 130.27 and his total score to 310.08, rendering him a technical sergeant (TSgt, E-6) select. The selection date for cycle 11E6 was 6 Jun 2011, with a public release date of 23 Jun 2011. The applicant did not file an appeal through the ERAB process until 27 Jul 2011. Since the close out date of the contested report was approximately eight months before selections were publicly announced, the applicant had ample opportunity to take corrective action. However, he did not do so until after he found out he had missed selection by less than one half of a point. The complete AFPC/DPSID evaluation is at Exhibit C. ________________________________________________________________ HQ AFPC/DPSID recommends denial of the applicant's request to remove the contested report. DPSID states, there is no evidence to show that the report is unjust or inaccurate as rendered. The applicant did file an appeal through the ERAB under the provisions of AFI 36-2401, Correcting Officer and Enlisted Evaluation Reports. However, the ERAB reviewed this application and was not convinced the contested report was inaccurate and unjust. The applicant contends that he was given an initial and formal feedback by his rater the same date that the EPR closed out on 27 Oct 2010. The applicant contends that his rater did this in an attempt to "cover his tracks," and thus ensure that a feedback date was technically given and recorded on the EPR during the inclusive period of the report. Air Force policy requires an initial feedback within 60 days of starting supervision and a midterm feedback approximately at the halfway point between the initial feedback and the close-out date of the report. When a required feedback does not take place, in accordance with AFI 36-2406, Officer and Enlisted Evaluation Systems, it is the ratee's responsibility to notify the rater, and if necessary the rater's rater, when a required or requested feedback did not take place. In this case, according to his first sergeant, the applicant did attempt multiple times to request a feedback; however, the rater did not provide formal feedback until the close-out date of the report, and informed the applicant that this feedback session would cover all mandated feedbacks in one session. In accordance with AFI 36-2406, the lack of counseling or feedback, by itself, is not sufficient justification to challenge the accuracy or justness of a report. In order to effectively and successfully challenge the validity of an EPR, it is necessary to hear from all the members of the rating chain-not only for support, but also for clarification or explanation. The applicant has failed to provide any information/support from the rating chain on the contested EPR. In the absence of information from evaluators, official substantiation of error or injustice from the Inspector General (IG) or Military Equal Opportunity is appropriate, but not provided in this case. It appears the report was accomplished in direct accordance with applicable regulations. An evaluation report is considered to represent the rating chain's best judgment at the time it is rendered. Once a report is accepted for file, only strong evidence to the contrary warrants correction or removal from an individual's record. The burden of proof is on the applicant. He has not substantiated the contested report was not rendered in good faith by all evaluators based on knowledge available at the time. The complete AFPC/DPSID evaluation is at Exhibit D. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: On 23 Mar 2012, copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant for review and comment within 30 days. As of this date, no response has been received by this office (Exhibit F). ________________________________________________________________ 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 error or injustice. In this respect, we note the evidence supports the applicant's contention that he was not given the required mandatory initial and midterm feedback sessions. Granted, a rater's failure to conduct a required or requested feedback session will not, of itself, invalidate any subsequent EPR. However, as pointed out by DPSID, when a required feedback does not take place, it is the ratee's responsibility to notify the rater. According to his first sergeant, the applicant requested feedback on several occasions; however, the rater did not provide formal feedback until the close-out date of the report. Therefore, we find sufficient doubt has been raised as to the accuracy of the report. We believe it would be in the interest of justice to resolve any doubt in favor of the applicant. Therefore, we recommend the contested EPR be declared void and removed from his records. 4. The applicant's case is adequately documented and it has not been shown that a personal appearance with or without counsel will materially add to our understanding of the issues involved. Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorably considered. ________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating to APPLICANT, be corrected to show that the Enlisted Performance Report, AF Form 910, rendered for the period 17 Jan 2010 through 27 Oct 2010, be declared void and removed from his records. It is further recommended that he be provided supplemental consideration for promotion to the grade of technical sergeant (E-6) for the 11E6 cycle. If AFPC discovers any adverse factors during or subsequent to supplemental consideration that are separate and apart, and unrelated to the issues involved in this application, that would have rendered the applicant ineligible for the promotion, such information will be documented and presented to the Board for a final determination on the individual's qualifications for the promotion. If supplemental promotion consideration results in the selection for promotion to the higher grade, immediately after such promotion, the records shall be corrected to show that he was promoted to the higher grade on the date of rank established by the supplemental promotion and that he is entitled to all pay, allowances, and benefits of such grade as of that date. ________________________________________________________________ The following members of the Board considered this application in Executive Session on 12 Jun 2012, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: , Panel Chair , Member , Member All members voted to correct the records, as recommended. The following documentary evidence was considered in AFBCMR BC-2011- 04746: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 17 Nov 2011, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPSID, dated 23 Jan 2012. Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/DPSOE, dated 14 Feb 2012. Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 23 Mar 2012. Panel Chair