RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2006-03204
            INDEX CODE:  111.02

      XXXXXXX    COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED: NO


MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:  20 APR 2008


___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His enlisted performance report (EPR) closing 28 Feb 05 be voided.

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

His performance markings do not match up with the  rater/additional
rater’s comments and promotion recommendation.   He  strongly  does
not believe he received a fair EPR with respect to the AFI and also
in comparison to his peers evaluated during the  same  time  frame.
The removal of his initial rater and the time frame  of  which  the
EPR was written was six months after the  closeout  date,  and  the
Performance Feedback section was incorrectly completed.

He believes his career has suffered because of  the  injustice  and
apparent reprisal actions, inappropriate comments  and  failure  to
follow procedures outlined in AFI 36-2406.

In support of his appeal, applicant submitted a personal statement;
a copy of his EPR closing  28  Feb  05;  his  Performance  Feedback
Worksheet; a copy of his Letter of Reprimand, dated 1 Mar  05;  His
rebuttal, dated 22 Mar 05, and other supporting documentation.

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

___________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant  is  currently  serving  as  a  staff  sergeant  with  an
effective date and date of rank of 1  Mar  02.   His  current  Duty
Title is Aircrew Life Support Journeyman.

A resume of applicant’s EPR profile follows:

            PERIOD CLOSING              OVERALL EVALUATION

                 16 Sep 97                                    4
                 12 Apr 99                                    5
                 30 Jul 01                                    5
                 30 Jul 02                                    5
                 28 Feb 03                                    5
                 29 Feb 04                                    4
*                28 Feb 05                                    3
                 28 Feb 06                                    5

* - The contested report  rendered  for  the  period  1  Mar  04  –
28 Feb 05 reflects 243 days of supervision and Performance Feedback
as “None.”  The rater and additional rater  signed  the  report  on
26 Aug 05.

Applicant filed an appeal under  the  provisions  of  AFI  36-2401,
Correcting Officer and Enlisted Evaluation Reports.  The Evaluation
Reports  Appeal  Board  (ERAB)  denied  the  requested  relief   on
19 Apr 06.

___________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

HQ AFPC/DPPPEP reviewed this application  and  recommended  denial.
Applicant states the evaluation  of  performance  markings  do  not
match up with the rater/additional rater's comments  and  promotion
recommendation.  Retrospective views of  facts  and  circumstances,
will  usually  not  overcome  the  presumption  that  the   initial
assessment remains valid.

He states the report  was  written  six  months  after  the  annual
closeout date of 28 Feb 05; that the  rater  did  not  request  the
required 59 day extension to the closeout date.  The timeframe  for
which his report was accomplished is closer to 180 days.   IAW  AFI
36-2406 para 3.7.5 extensions will be granted not to exceed 59 days
to the closeout date of a report.  Extension requests  are  granted
to reflect derogatory information that happens between the  time  a
report closes and the time it is  made  a  matter  of  record.   An
extension request was not required for this report.  The report was
signed/finalized by the additional rater on  26 August  2005.   The
report became a matter of record 178 days after the closeout  date.
AFI 36-2406 para 3.8.5.3 states completed OPRs and EPRs are due  to
the MPF no later than 30 days after closeout.   3.8.5.2  states  do
not suspense or require raters to submit  signed/completed  reports
any earlier than five duty days after the close-out date.   If  the
rater is not available,  extend  the  suspense.   Applicant  states
Block V  was  not  accomplished  in  accordance  with  the  current
guidance provided in AFI 36-2406.  Applicant  states  EPR  reflects
"None"  under  the  area  of   "Last   Performance   Feedback   was
Accomplished  on."   The  proper  comment   should   reflect   "not
accomplished due to rater being removed from  supervisory  duties."
The report does reflect the comment "Feedback not accomplished  due
to rater being removed from supervisory duties."

He contends neither the rater  nor  the  additional  rater  is  his
rater’s rater.  However, he failed to provide proof of  the  rating
chain during the reporting period.  To prove his case,  the  member
needs statements from both the individuals who  signed  the  report
and from the individuals who believe they should have  written  the
report.  The memo should cite from and thru  dates  of  supervision
and explain what happened.  The "erroneous" evaluator must  clearly
explain why he or she wrote and signed the report  when  they  were
not the rater.  Likewise the “correct” evaluator must  explain  why
he or she did not write the report.

The applicant states no negative/correction  paperwork  during  the
reporting period was filed in his PIF.  He also states the  rater’s
comments praised him as his "#1 NCO in the shop."  The applicant is
attempting to relate the ratings on the EPR to the markings on  the
performance feedback worksheet (PFW).   This  is  an  inappropriate
comparison and is inconsistent with the Enlisted Evaluation  System
(EES).  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 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.

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 15 Dec 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  neither  the
rater, nor the additional rater was his rater’s rater.   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.   The  Chief,  Evaluations
Programs  Branch,  has  addressed  the  issues  presented  by   the
applicant  and  we  are  in  agreement   with   her   opinion   and
recommendation.  Therefore, we 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  in  this
application.

___________________________________________________________________

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-2006-03204 in Executive Session on 1 February  2007,  under  the
provisions of AFI 36-2603:

      Ms. Cathlynn B. Novel, Panel Chair
      Mr. Don H. Kendrick, Member
      Ms. Maureen B. Higgins, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 3 Oct 06, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPPEP, undated.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 15 Dec 06.




                                   CATHLYNN B. NOVEL
                                   Panel Chair