RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:                       DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2006-01662
                                        INDEX CODE:  111.02
  XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX                      COUNSEL:  NONE

                                       HEARING DESIRED:  YES

MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:  4 December 2007

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) rendered for the period of 16  October
2002 through 15 October 2003 be voided and removed from his records.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

His rater did not provide performance feedback during the rating  period  in
question.  The date entered in Block V of his EPR, identifying the  date  of
last performance feedback (14 May 2002), is false because he  was  on  leave
on that date.  During  the  rating  period,  his  rater  was  deployed  from
December 2002 until April 2003.  After his rater’s return, he worked on  mid
shift while his rater worked day shift.  His rater  had  little  opportunity
to observe his performance or accurately  assess  it.   He  has  included  a
character statement from the supervisor he worked for  during  his  time  on
mid shift.   This  injustice  contributed  to  lowering  his  points  during
promotion testing, and thus prevented him from being promoted in 2004.

In support of his request, the applicant submits copies  of  his  last  four
EPRs, several character references, documents supporting his leave  for  the
questionable feedback period, and his application to the Evaluation  Reports
Appeal Board (ERAB) with their subsequent disapproval.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

According to the military personnel data system, the applicant is  currently
serving on active duty in the rank of senior airman with a dated of rank  of
23 July 2003.  He has a Total Active Federal  Military  Service  Date  of  6
February 2001 and a projected date of separation of 5 May 2007.

The following is a resume of the applicant’s EPR profile:

      PERIOD ENDING          PROMOTION RECOMMENDATION

    15 Oct 02                     5
    15 Oct 03*                    4
    15 Oct 04                     5
    15 Oct 05                     5

   *Contested reports

The ERAB considered  and  denied  the  applicant’s  request  to  remove  the
contested report on 18 October 2005.
_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPPEP recommends denial of the applicant’s request  to  void  his  EPR
closing on 15 October 2003.  DPPPEP states documentation provided  validates
the applicant was on leave during the period  his  rater  annotated  on  the
contested EPR as his performance feedback date.  However, while current  Air
Force  policy  requires  performance  feedback  for  personnel,   a   direct
correlation between information provided during feedback  sessions  and  the
assessments on evaluation reports does not  necessarily  exist.   Air  Force
Instruction 36-2403, paragraph 2-10, states, “A rater’s failure  to  conduct
a required or requested feedback session does not by  itself  invalidate  an
EPR.”  Evaluators must confirm they did not provide counseling or  feedback,
and that this directly resulted in an unfair evaluation.

The AFPC/DPPPEP evaluation is at Exhibit B.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant contends if there is no proof the feedback session  ever  took
place, yet his rater stated on an official form that it did occur, and  even
provided an erroneous date, to  what  degree  can  the  rest  of  report  be
legitimately  accepted  as  an  accurate  and  honest  reflection   of   his
performance.  He notes the Air  Force  office  of  primary  responsibility’s
comments that it is  his  responsibility  to  request  a  feedback  session;
however, he never received a notification that he should  request  one  and,
as an airman first class, he  was  unaware  it  was  his  responsibility  to
notify his supervisor of needing a feedback session.

The applicant’s rebuttal is at 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 probable error or injustice warranting favorable  consideration
of the applicant’s request that the contested report  be  removed  from  his
records.  We note the applicant’s assertion that his rater was deployed  for
part of the evaluation period; performance feedback was not  conducted;  and
after his return from deployment, the rater worked on a different shift  for
part of the rating period; however, we also note the  comments  provided  by
the Air Force office of  primary  responsibility  that  although  Air  Force
policy  does  require  performance  feedback   for   personnel,   a   direct
correlation between information provided during feedback and the  assessment
on evaluation reports need not necessarily exist.  In view of the above  and
in the absence of evidence showing the contested  report  is  an  inaccurate
depiction of his performance during the rating period in question, we  agree
with the opinion and recommendation of  the  Air  Force  office  of  primary
responsibility.  Accordingly, the applicant’s request to  void  his  EPR  is
not favorably considered.

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 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 24 August 2006, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

                 Mr. Michael J. Novel, Panel Chair
                 Mr. Gregory A. Parker, Member
                 Ms. Jan Mulligan, Member


The following documentary evidence for AFBCMR  Docket  Number  BC-2006-01662
was considered:

      Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 25 May 06, w/atchs.
      Exhibit B.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPEP, dated 13 Jun 06.
      Exhibit C.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 23 Jun 06.
      Exhibit D.  Applicant’s Rebuttal, dated 28 Jun 06.




                                  MICHAEL J. NOVEL
                                                   Panel Chair