RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2005-01890
            INDEX CODE:  111.02

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO

MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:  17 DECEMBER 2006

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His  Enlisted  Performance  Report  (EPR),  rendered  for  the  period
2 August 2001 through 10 May 2002, be declared void and  removed  from
his records.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He received an unjust rating because he never  received  any  feedback
from his rater.  He worked with the rater for approximately six  weeks
and during this period, he was geographically separated from his rater
and, at times, they worked different shifts.

In support of his request, the applicant submits copies of his AFI 36-
2401 application, the Evaluation Reports Appeal Board (ERAB) decision,
EPRs, AF Form 77 (Supplemental Evaluation  Sheet)  and  an  Air  Force
Commendation  Medal  (AFCM)  citation.    The   applicant’s   complete
submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Information extracted from the Personnel Data System (PDS) reveals the
applicant’s Total Active Federal Military Service Date (TAFMSD) as  15
July 1987.  He is currently serving on active duty  in  the  grade  of
master sergeant, with an effective date of rank of 1 April 2005.

Applicant's Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) profile for the last ten
reporting periods follows:

            Period Ending    Evaluation

      (SSgt)       30 Nov 96 5 - Immediate Promotion
              30 Nov 97      5
               1 Aug 98      5
               1 Aug 99      5
               1 Aug 00      5
      (TSgt)        1 Aug 01 5
            * 10 May 02      4 - Ready
              18 Jul 03      5
              20 May 04      5
              15 Dec 04      5

* Contested report

A similar appeal by the applicant, under Air Force  Instruction  (AFI)
36-2401, was considered by the Evaluation Report Appeal  Board  (ERAB)
on 16 May 2003.  The ERAB denied removal of the report; however,  they
corrected the administrative  errors  and  had  the  contested  report
replaced with the corrected report.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

HQ AFPC/DPPP recommends the application  be  denied.   DPPP  indicates
that, in accordance with the Air Force instruction, a rater’s  failure
to conduct a required or requested feedback session, or  document  the
session on a PFW, will  not,  of  itself,  invalidate  any  subsequent
performance report.  DPPP states that applications based on  the  fact
that the ratee and his evaluators were  geographically  separated,  or
working on a different shift, require  conclusive  documentation  show
they had  no  valid  basis  on  which  to  assess  performance.   Many
individuals  perform  duties  without  the  benefit  of  direct  daily
supervision; therefore, separation along is not a valid argument.  The
first time the contested report was used in the promotion process  was
cycle 03E7.  The applicant’s total score  was  322.23  and  the  score
required for selection in his Air  Force  Specialty  Code  (AFSC)  was
347.44.  He missed selection by 25.21 points and removal of the report
would only add 6.75 points  to  his  EPR  score.   The  applicant  was
selected for promotion to the grade of master  sergeant  during  cycle
04E7.  The HQ AFPC/DPPP evaluation is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant reviewed the advisory  opinion  and  indicated  that  he
never received a documented or informal day-to-day feedback  from  his
rater.  He provided copies of an AF Form 77, signed by  his  immediate
supervisor while deployed, and the  AFCM  citation.   During  the  six
months he was deployed, his immediate supervisor thought enough of his
duty performance to submit him for an AFCM.   He  believes  his  rater
disregarded the inputs from his deployed immediate supervisor when  he
wrote the contested report even though he used some of the  data  from
the AF Form 77 in his performance  report.   He  feels  the  contested
report is an  inaccurate  portrayal  of  his  duty  performance.   The
applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, 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.   We  are  unconvinced  by  the
evidence presented that the contested report  was  technically  flawed
when  prepared,  or  that  the  ratings  were  based   on   inaccurate
information.  There is no indication in the record before us that  the
rater did not have reasonable  information  available  concerning  the
applicant’s performance during the contested rating period on which to
base a reasonably accurate  assessment.   Direct  supervision  for  an
allotted time is not a prerequisite for being the rater of  a  report.
Evaluators may be in positions where they have infrequent contact with
the ratee.  However, they are  still  required  to  be  aware  of  the
ratee’s  performance  and  its   impact   on   the   unit’s   mission.
Additionally, we note that the rater on the contested  report  was  in
the applicant’s rating chain on the preceding  report  which,  in  our
view, supports the position that  the  rater  was  familiar  with  the
applicant and was aware of his performance.  Additionally, we did  not
find the  rater’s  failure  to  conduct  feedback  sessions  to  be  a
sufficient basis to invalidate the report.  In view of the  foregoing,
we found no basis upon which to  recommend  favorable  action  on  the
applicant’s request.
_________________________________________________________________

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  this  application  in
Executive Session on 1 November 2005, under the provisions of AFI  36-
2603:

                  Ms. Marilyn M. Thomas, Vice Chair
                  Ms. Olga M. Crerar, Member
                  Mr. James W. Russell III, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered in  connection  with
AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2005-01890.

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 6 Jun 05, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPP, dated 29 Aug 05.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 2 Sep 05.
   Exhibit E.  Letter from Applicant, dated 28 Sep 05.




                                   MARILYN M. THOMAS
                                   Vice Chair