RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2005-01996
            INDEX CODE:  111.00

      COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO

MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:  25 DEC 07

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

Her Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) rendered  for  the  period  1 December
2003 through 30 November 2004 be amended as follows:

        1. Change Section III, Block 4 to reflect “Exemplifies the  standard
of conduct” rather than “Sets the example for others.”

        2. Change Section IV to reflect “Immediate  Promotion”  rather  than
“Ready.”

         3.  Section  V,  Line  12  -  delete  comment  “--received  several
counseling   sessions   for   inappropriate   behavior--now   making   great
improvement”

        4. Or the EPR  rendered  for  the  period  1 December  2003  through
30 November 2004, be declared void.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The EPR rendered for the period 1 December 2003  through  30 November  2004,
Section V, Line 12 is a derogatory comment - thus making the EPR a  referral
report.  She does not feel adequate consideration was given to  the  report.
She submitted over 50 draft  bullets  for  her  supervisor’s  consideration;
however, only a few were used.   She  indicates  she  has  demonstrated  top
notch airmanship.  In prior  feedback  sessions,  her  rater  indicated  she
performed “above and beyond and meet  challenges  head  on,”  and  she  does
“what it takes to get the  job  done  to  the  point  of  exhaustion.”   Her
immediate supervisor was deployed for four months -  although  her  mid-term
feedback was due before she deployed she accomplished it via telephone.   At
no time did she mention any derogatory comments or  possible  problems  that
would diminish her current ratings.  In fact, during  the  feedback  session
it was indicated that her supervisor would rate her  [the  applicant]  as  a
“5.”  However, that was not the case.  She further indicates if  her  rating
was based on counselings she received then her  rating  should  be  changed.
First, the allegations which were the  subject  of  counselings  -  did  not
occur.  Further, one statement violates  the  requirements  of  AFI  36-2907
paragraph  3.1  and  was  improperly  discussed  with  others,  without  her
knowledge.  Also, other  Non-Commissioned  Officers  (NCOs),  including  her
supervisor, were not held accountable for similar or worse actions.

Applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 30 June 1999, the applicant enlisted  in  the  Regular  Air  Force.   She
continued to reenlist contracting her last enlistment on 30 June 2005 for  a
period of six years.

EPR profile since 2001 reflects the following:

      PERIOD ENDING    EVALUATION OF POTENTIAL

            15 Jan 01        4
            30 Nov 01        5
            30 Nov 02        5
            30 Nov 03        5
       * 30 Nov 04           4
            29 Jun 05        5

* Contested report.

On 29 June 2005, the applicant was honorably released from active  duty  and
transferred to the Air Force Reserves in the grade of staff sergeant,  under
the provisions of AFI 36-3208,  (Intradepartmental  Transfer).   She  served
six years of total active military service.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPPE indicated it  is  the  raters’  responsibility  to  document  the
applicant’s accomplishments as they deem necessary.  Although the  applicant
disagrees with the wording  of  the  report  and  believes  the  report  was
missing certain accomplishments, the applicant must  understand  it  is  not
her responsibility to write the report.  The report is not incorrect  simply
based on the fact the rater chose not to use all  the  information  provided
to her by the ratee.



The purpose of the feedback session is to give the ratee  direction  and  to
define  performance  expectations  for  the  rating  period   in   question.
Feedback also provides the ratee the opportunity to improve performance,  if
necessary,  before  the  EPR  is  written.   The  rater  who  prepares   the
Performance Feedback Worksheet (PFW) may use the PFW as an aid in  preparing
the EPR and, if applicable, subsequent feedback sessions.   Ratings  on  the
PFW are not an absolute indicator of EPR ratings or  potential  for  serving
in a higher grade.

Air Force policy is that an evaluation report is accurate  as  written  when
it becomes a matter of record.  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.  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 an error or injustice from the Inspector General  (IG)  or
Military Equal  Opportunity  is  appropriate;  however,  the  applicant  has
failed to provide this support.

They agree the comment in section V, line 12 is a referral  comment.   Based
on the fact the report was not referred correctly, they contacted the  rater
to determine if her intentions were to refer  the  report.   The  rater  has
provided information that it was not  her  intention  to  write  a  referral
report.  They  requested  a  substitute  comment  to  replace  the  referral
comment from the rater.  The rater has provided  a  new  comment  that  they
recommend be placed on the report.

They recommend  denial  to  void  or  upgrade  the  report.   However,  they
recommend the comment in section V, line 12 be replaced with  the  following
statement, “Although meeting minimum standards, SSgt J--- has  made  efforts
to improve and perform to her potential.”

The evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

On 23 November 2005, a copy of the Air Force  evaluation  was  forwarded  to
the applicant for review and response within 30 days.  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.    Sufficient relevant evidence has been  presented  to  demonstrate  the
existence of an error warranting partial relief.  The Air Force opined  that
the comment in section V, line 12 is a referral comment  and  based  on  the
fact the report was not referred correctly,  they  contacted  the  rater  to
determine if her intentions were to refer the report.  The  rater  indicated
it was not her intention  to  write  a  referral  report.   She  provided  a
replacement comment that the Air Force recommended be placed on the  report,
“Although meeting minimum standards, SSgt J--- has made efforts  to  improve
and perform to her potential.”  The Board believes  that  since  the  report
was not intended to be a referral report, the comment should be removed  and
replaced with the rater’s  new  comment.   In  view  of  the  foregoing,  we
recommend the records be corrected to the extent indicated below.

4.    Notwithstanding the above findings, the Board is of the  opinion  that
the remainder of the applicant’s requested EPR changes  are  not  warranted.
The applicant’s contentions are duly noted;  however,  the  Board  does  not
find these assertions, in and  by  themselves,  sufficiently  persuasive  to
override  the  rationale  provided  by  the  Air  Force  office  of  primary
responsibility.   Further,  the  applicant  has  not  submitted   supporting
documentation from any of the rating chain members indicating the  contested
report was not an accurate assessment as  rendered.   Therefore,  the  Board
agrees with the opinion and recommendation of the Air Force and  adopts  its
rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant  has  not  been
the victim of either an error or an injustice.  Therefore, the  Board  finds
no compelling basis to recommend granting  this  portion  of  the  requested
relief.

_________________________________________________________________

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 1 December 2003 through 30 November  2004,
be amended in Section V, Rater’s Comment, Line 12, by deleting  the  comment
“SSgt J--- received several counseling sessions for inappropriate behavior--
now making great  improvement”  and  replacing  it  with  “Although  meeting
minimum standards, SSgt J--- has made efforts to improve and perform to  her
potential.”

_________________________________________________________________

The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket Number  BC-2005-
01996 in Executive Session on 4 January 2006, under the  provisions  of  AFI
36-2603:

                 Mr. James W. Russell III, Panel Chair
                 Ms. Barbara R. Murray, Member
                 Ms. Josephine L. Davis, Member

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

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 1 June 2005, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPE, dated 8 November 2005,
                 w/atchs.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 23 November 2005.





                       JAMES W. RUSSELL III
                       Panel Chair




AFBCMR BC-2005-01996





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   , be corrected to show that  the Enlisted Performance Report,
AF Form 910, rendered for the period 1 December 2003 through 30 November
2004, be amended in Section V, Rater’s Comment, Line 12, by deleting the
comment “SSgt J--- received several counseling sessions for inappropriate
behavior--now making great improvement” and replacing it with “Although
meeting minimum standards, SSgt J--- has made efforts to improve and
perform to her potential.”





            JOE G. LINEBERGER
            Director
            Air Force Review Boards Agency