RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-02557 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His AF Form 911, Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) (MSgt thru CMSgt), rendered for the period 3 May 08 thru 2 May 09 be declared void and removed from his records. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: His rater did not provide him with a mid-term feedback and there is evidence to support that a personality conflict existed between him and his rater. The memorandums prepared by two of his senior leaders acknowledge there was a personality conflict between him and his immediate supervisor, and as a result he was moved to a different office. He asked for feedback and notified his chain-of-command that he was not provided feedback. The evidence shows that: 1) his rater failed to comply with AFI 36-2406, Officer and Enlisted Evaluation Systems, paragraph 2.2.2, and was counseled for it; 2) a personality conflict was present during the rating period and he was not given a proper evaluation; and 3) He was not properly counseled that his performance was lacking and needed improvement because he was not provided a proper performance feedback. He worked directly for his rater from 3 May 08 until approximately 31 Aug 08, during the remainder of the rating period, he worked in J1 from 1 Sep 08 until mid Apr 09, and in J2 from Apr 02 –Sep 09. In support of his request, the applicant provides a personal statement, copies of his EPR, and memorandums for record from his senior level evaluator and supervisors, and other documentation associated with his request. 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 (MSgt). The following is a profile of the applicant’s last 10 EPRs: PERIOD ENDING OVERALL RATING 2 May 11 5 2 May 10 5 * 2 May 09 4 2 May 08 5 30 Jun 07 5 1 Dec 06 5 1 Dec 05 5 18 Apr 05 4 18 Apr 04 5 18 Apr 03 5 18 Apr 02 5 * Contested Report 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. The ERAB considered the applicant’s appeal and was not convinced the report was unjust or inaccurate and denied his request for relief. The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the letters prepared by the appropriate offices of the Air Force, which are attached at Exhibit B and C. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSID recommends denial. DPSID states there is no evidence that the report is unjust or inaccurate as originally rendered. A review of the contested EPR does show that a mid-term feedback was not conducted. Air Force policy requires an initial feedback within 60 days of starting supervision and a midterm approximately at the halfway point between the initial feedback and the close-out date of the report. IAW AFI 36-2406, 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. The applicant provides no evidence in his appeal that he attempted to obtain a mid-term feedback as of the close-out date of the contested report from any member of his rating chain. While current Air Force policy requires performance feedback for personnel, a correlation between information provided during feedback sessions and the assessments on evaluation reports does not necessarily exist. 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. Lack of counseling or feedback, by itself, is not sufficient to challenge the accuracy or justness of a report. If the applicant believed he was the victim of any unfair treatment by his rater, and that any unfair treatment may have negatively influenced the report, he should have initiated an Inspector General (IG) or Military Equal Opportunity and Treatment (EOT) complaint. The applicant did not provide any evidence that he pursued any of these actions or provide any findings in his favor. In worker-supervisor relationships, some disagreements are likely to occur since a worker must abide by a supervisor’s policies and decisions. To make an effective case that an evaluator was unfavorably biased, the applicant must cite specific examples of the conflict or bias and provide firsthand evidence that clearly shows how the conflict prevented the evaluator from preparing a fair and accurate report. If other evaluators support an appeal because they were unaware of a conflict at the time, they should provide specific information (and cite their sources) which leads them to believe the report is not an objective assessment. The memorandum from his higher level evaluator on the contested report, does indicate that there was an existing personality conflict, but does not state in any way this contributed to a biased and non-objective assessment by the rater. Moreover, he has confirmed his agreement of the ratings given by the rater, and has not indicated any change in his position regarding this issue. His final review of the contested evaluation and subsequent agreement with the ratings given by the rater serves as a final “check and balance” in order to ensure the report was given in fair consideration IAW the established intent of the current Officer and Enlisted Evaluation System in place. In the absence of any evidence of unfair treatment or injustice, DPSID finds that the ratings were given fairly and IAW all Air Force policies and procedures. The applicant has provided information from the additional rater of record, but this information does not support his contentions and was not germane to his overall appeal. 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 applicant has not substantiated that the contested report was not rendered in good faith by all evaluators based on knowledge available at the time. The complete DPSID evaluation is at Exhibit B. AFPC/DPSOE defers to the recommendation of DPSID regarding the removal of the report and its validity. DPSOE states that should the Board void the report as requested, they could direct the applicant be provided supplemental consideration beginning with cycle 10E8. DPSOE states the first time the contested report was used in the promotion process was during cycle 10E8 to Senior Master Sergeant (SMSgt). It has also been used during cycles 11E8 and 12E8. The applicant was rendered a nonselect for all three cycles. The complete DPSOE evaluation is at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: On 11 Sep 12, copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant for review and comment within 30 days. To date, a response has not been received (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. Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of error or injustice. We took notice of the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of the case; however, we agree with the opinions and recommendations of the Air Force offices of primary responsibility and adopt their rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice. Therefore, 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 Docket Number BC-2012-02557 in Executive Session on 26 Feb 12, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: , Panel Chair , Member , Member The following documentary evidence was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 12 Jun 12, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Letter, AFPC/DPSID, 6 Aug 12. Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPSOE, dated 22 Aug 12. Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 11 Sep 12. Acting Panel Chair