RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2006-02532
            INDEX CODE:  111.02

      XXXXXXXXXX COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED: YES


MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:  26 FEB 2008


___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His enlisted performance report closing 15 Jan 04 be voided.

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He did not receive feedback during the rating period.  His rater at
the time refused to write the report while deployed.  He states his
rater signed blank copies of the EPR form before deploying.

In support of his appeal, applicant submitted a personal  statement
and letters of support from his rating chain and co-worker.

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

___________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 2 Jul  01.   He  was
progressively promoted to the rank of staff sergeant on 1  Mar  06.
He is currently serving as an Aircraft Fuel Systems Journeyman.

A resume of applicant’s EPR profile follows:

            PERIOD CLOSING              OVERALL EVALUATION

                 15 Jan 03                                    5
*                15 Jan 04                                    3
                 15 Jan 05                                    5
                 15 Jan 06                                    5

* - The contested report rendered  for  the  period  16  Jan  03  –
15 Jan 04, reflects 260 days of supervision.  The  report  reflects
performance feedback was performed on 7 Sep 03.

The applicant filed an appeal under the provisions of AFI  36-2401,
Correcting Officer and Enlisted Evaluation  Reports;  however,  the
ERAB denied the request.

___________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

HQ AFPC/DPPPEP reviewed this application and recommended denial.

While documented  feedback  sessions  are  required,  they  do  not
replace informal day-to-day feedback.  A rater’s failure to conduct
a required or requested feedback session, or document  the  session
on a performance feedback worksheet (PFW),  will  not,  of  itself,
invalidate any subsequent performance report.  A direct correlation
between information  provided  during  feedback  sessions  and  the
assessments on evaluation reports do not  necessarily  exist.   For
example,  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.  There may be occasions when feedback  was  not  provided
during a reporting period.  Lack  of  counseling  or  feedback,  by
itself, is not sufficient to challenge the accuracy or justness  of
a report.

The applicant contends the rater signed blank  copies  of  the  EPR
before deploying.   The  applicant  failed  to  provide  supporting
evidence that this occurred.  A memo was provided  by  the  rater’s
rater, stating he completed the EPR for  the  rater.   However,  he
never stated the EPR he completed was pre-signed by  the  rater  or
that the rater disagrees with the EPR.  The rater signed the report
and agreed to  the  verbiage  and  markings  on  the  report.   The
applicant failed to provide support from either  evaluator  stating
the report is inaccurate.

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 error or injustice from the Inspector General (IG)  or  Military
Equal Opportunity is appropriate, but not provided in this case.

A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit C.

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to  the  applicant
on 22 Sep 06 for review and comment within 30  days.   As  of  this
date, no response has been received by this office (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.   The  applicant
contends that he did not receive feedback and that his rater signed
blank copies of the EPR form prior  to  departing  for  deployment.
The Board noted the comments provided in support of the applicant’s
appeal, including the letters supporting his  contentions;  however
we found no evidence to  show  the  contested  report  was  not  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.  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 AFBCMR Docket  Number
BC-2006-02532 in Executive Session on 15 November 2006,  under  the
provisions of AFI 36-2603:

      Ms. B. J. White-Olson, Panel Chair
      Mr. Wallace F. Beards Jr., Member
      Mr. Patrick C. Daugherty, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 11 Aug 06, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPPEP, dated 15 Sep 06.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 22 Sep 06.




                                   B. J. WHITE-OLSON
                                   Panel Chair