RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2003-01623
            INDEX CODE:  111.05

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED: NO

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

The Enlisted Performance  Report  (EPR)  rendered  for  the  period
9 Jun 00 - 8 Jun 02 be voided.

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

His EPR is improper.  According  to  AFI  36-2406,  if  his  rating
official changed, he should have received  a  change  of  reporting
official (CRO) report.  He performed the required number of  points
to require an EPR.

He was activated in support of Operation Noble Eagle,  and  at  the
time  of  his  activation,  he  was  assigned  as  Chief,  Training
Resources.  After reporting for duty, he was advised that he  would
be performing duty  as  a  Flight  Sergeant  and  another  IMA  was
appointed as  his  supervisor  and  rater,  which  he  believes  is
contrary to Air Force instructions and those from the  Air  Reserve
Personnel Center (ARPC).

The ratings he received in his EPR were  not  consistent  with  his
performance  feedbacks.   Additionally,  the  number  of  days   of
supervision cited on his report should have only been  six  months,
not 730 days.

In support of his appeal, applicant submitted a  copy  of  his  EPR
closing 8 Jun 02; a computer  printout  (Ratee’s  Initial/Follow-up
Performance Feedback Notification), dated 11 Jun 01;  a  Report  on
Individual Personnel (RIP), dated 14 Feb 02; a Records Review  Rip,
dated 24 Jul 02; a copy of a CRO/Duty Title  Worksheet;  copies  of
his AF Forms 932, Performance Feedback Worksheet (MSgt thru CMSgt),
dated 2 Jan 02 and 19 Feb 02, respectively, and a  copy  of  emails
from the Base IMA Administrator (BIMAA).

Applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.

___________________________________________________________________



STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Information extracted from the Personnel Data System (PDS) reflects
applicant’s Total Enlistment  Military  Service  Date  (TEMSD)  and
Paydate as 25 Oct 1978.  His entered his last enlistment on  29 Feb
2000.  He was promoted to the grade of Master Sergeant (MSgt), with
a Date  of  Rank  (DOR)  of  1  September  1994.   On  16 Oct 2002,
applicant transferred to the Retired Reserve.

A resume of applicant’s EPR profile follows:

            PERIOD CLOSING              OVERALL EVALUATION

                              30               Dec               86
9(APR)
                              30               Dec               87
9(APR)
                              30               Dec               88
9(APR)
                              08               Jun               98
5(EPR)
                              08               Jun               00
5(EPR)
*                             08               Jun               02
4(EPR)

*  The contested  report  rendered  for  the  period  9  Jun  00  -
8 Jun 02, reflects 730 days  of  supervision  and  the  duty  title
“Flight Chief.”

___________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

HQ  ARPC/DPB  recommended  denial.   They   state   the   applicant
acknowledged receipt  of  the  new  rater  as  his  supervisor  per
feedbacks given him on 2 Jan 02 and 19  Feb  02,  even  though  the
official paperwork was completed on 7 Jun 02.  While current policy
requires performance feedback for personnel, a  direct  correlation
between information provided during the feedback sessions  and  the
assessments on an evaluation report  do  not  necessarily  have  to
exist.  In accordance with  AFI  36-2401,  Correcting  Officer  and
Enlisted Evaluation Reports,  para  A1.5.8,  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.   AFI  36-2406,  Officer  and
Enlisted  Evaluation  Systems,  requires  a  change  of   reporting
official EPR when either the  rater  or  the  ratee  departs  on  a
permanent change of station (PCS).  Neither the  ratee  (applicant)
nor rater departed PCS, so no EPR was required.

AFI 36-2406, also  states  that  “For  IMAs,  the  rater  will  not
normally be another IMA.  However, if circumstances require that an
IMA must directly supervise another IMA,  the  rater  will  be  the
official appointed by management.”  The reasoning  behind  this  is
that IMAs do  not  normally  perform  duty  together;  so  one  IMA
supervising the performance of another IMA  was  not  in  the  best
interest of either IMA.  Since the  applicant  and  his  supervisor
were activated together and performing duty on a daily  basis,  the
specifics  of  the  second  part  of  the   paragraph   were   met;
circumstances required one IMA to directly supervise another.

They further state that the Noble  Eagle/Enduring  Freedom  message
the applicant  submitted  with  his  request  addressed  evaluation
reports for officers only.  Therefore, the policy stated in the AFI
applies.  All regulatory guidelines were followed  and  unless  the
applicant can provide substantiation from his former  rating  chain
to support his position of the inaccuracy of the EPR, the report is
considered accurate and appropriate, as written.

A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit C.

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Applicant reiterated his original contentions that the EPR was  not
legal and gave further explanation of circumstances surrounding his
performance feedback accomplishment and his reasoning as to why  he
disagrees with the advisory opinion from HQ ARPC.

Applicant’s complete response is at Exhibit E.

___________________________________________________________________

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.   The  applicant
contends that if  his  rating  official  changed,  he  should  have
received a change of reporting official (CRO) report and  that  the
EPR ratings he received were not consistent with the  feedbacks  he
received.  After a thorough review  of  the  evidence  provided  in
support of the applicant’s appeal, we do not find  his  assertions,
in and by  themselves,  sufficiently  persuasive  to  override  the
rationale  provided  by  the  Air  Force.   Other  than   his   own
assertions, he did not present any corroborative evidence from  his
rating chain or chain of command to support his contention of error
or injustice.   Nor  did  he  provide  any  evidence  to  show  the
contested report is an  inaccurate  or  unfair  assessment  of  his
overall duty performance during the contested rating period or that
the  contested  report  was  prepared  contrary  to  the  governing
instruction.   Therefore,   we   agree   with   the   opinion   and
recommendation of the Air Force office  of  primary  responsibility
and adopt the rationale expressed as the  basis  for  our  decision
that the applicant has failed  to  sustain  his  burden  of  having
suffered  either  an  error  or  injustice.   In  the  absence   of
persuasive evidence to the contrary, we find no compelling basis to
recommend granting the relief sought.

4.  Notwithstanding  the  above  findings,  after   reviewing   the
evidence provided by the applicant, we believe that the  number  of
days of supervision on the contested report should be amended.   In
this respect, the 75th Security  Forces  CRO/Duty  Title  Worksheet
reflects the effective date of change  of  reporting  official  was
1 Dec 01.   We  therefore  believe  that  the  number  of  days  of
supervision should be changed to accurately reflect the  period  of
supervision by the rater who rendered the report.  Accordingly,  we
recommend that the  contested  report  be  amended  to  the  extent
indicated below.

___________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT:

The pertinent military records of the Department of the  Air  Force
relating to the APPLICANT, be corrected to show that  the  AF  Form
911, Senior Enlisted Performance Report, rendered  for  the  period
9 June 2000 through 8 June 2002, be amended  in  Section  I  (Ratee
Identification Date), Item 8 (No. Days Supervision),  to  read  190
rather than 730.

_________________________________________________________________

The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket  Number
BC-2003-01623 in Executive Session on 20  August  2003,  under  the
provisions of AFI 36-2603:

                  Ms. Olga M. Crerar, Panel Chair
                  Ms. Leslie Abbott, Member
                  Mr. James W. Russell III, Member

All members voted to correct  the  records,  as  recommended.   The
following documentary evidence was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 6 May 03, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, HQ ARPC/DPB, dated 23 May 03.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 3 Jun 03.
   Exhibit E.  Letter, Applicant, dated 24 Jun 03




                                   OLGA M. CRERAR
                                   Panel Chair



AFBCMR BC-2003-01623




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 Form
911, Senior Enlisted Performance Report, rendered for the period
9 June 2000 through 8 June 2002, be, and hereby is, amended in
Section I (Ratee Identification Data), Item 8 (No. Days
Supervision), to read 190 rather than 730.





            JOE G. LINEBERGER
            Director
            Air Force Review Boards Agency