RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:                       DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2006-03455
                                             INDEX CODE:  111.05
      XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX          COUNSEL:  NONE

                                             HEARING DESIRED:  NO


MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:  12 May 2008


________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) from 3 April 2005  through  7  October
2005 be removed from his records.

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The  EPR  was  not  a  fair  and  objective  assessment  of  his  leadership
abilities, and is in no  way  an  accurate  reflection  of  his  performance
during that period.  His  track  record  of  over  21 years  of  outstanding
performance reports questions the validity of the contested  EPR  with  only
approximately 132 days of direct supervision.

His supervisor (and rater of the contested  EPR)  indicated  to  him  on  21
September 2005, only weeks before the closeout date of  the  contested  EPR,
that he intended to nominate him for Personnel Manager  of  the  Year.   His
supervisor chose not to speak to him,  nor  provide  any  feedback,  before,
during, or after any supposed decline in  performance,  and  his  leadership
did not take a stand in  ensuring  he  was  given  proper  feedback  by  his
supervisor.

An “e-motional” e-mail response from his supervisor to one  of  his  e-mails
sparked his removal and subsequent  substandard  EPR.   His  supervisor  was
just waiting for something/anything to happen to put all of this in motion.

He was removed from his position in order to put his replacement in  a  more
competitive position for promotion at his  expense.  Further,  there  was  a
blatant case of fraud involved in changing the records of  his  replacement,
a favorite of his supervisor, with whom he would  spend  many  hours  during
the day just sitting and chatting.

He has been the victim of an irrational, emotional, and hidden agenda  style
supervisor.   Although  the  EPR  is  an   overall   “5” rating,   promotion
opportunities are very competitive, especially for promotion  to  CMSgt  (E-
9),  and  this  EPR  will,  in  all  likelihood,  prevent  future  promotion
opportunities.

In support of his appeal, he submits a personal statement and a copy of  his
application to the Evaluation Report Appeal Board (ERAB),  with  attachments
consisting of a personal statement to the ERAB, a copy of the contested  EPR
from 3 April 2005 through 7 October 2005, two instances of  e-mail  traffic,
numerous  character  references,  numerous   extracts   from   his   records
concerning his duty history, 23 previous EPRs, and an  e-mail  copy  of  the
decision of the ERAB.

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

________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The contested EPR was a Change of Reporting Official (CRO)  report  covering
188 days of supervision for the period 3 April 2005 through 7 October  2005.
 Although the EPR was  an  overall  “5”  rating  in  Section  IV,  Promotion
Recommendation, it was not a “firewall” EPR as the rater downgraded  ratings
in  Section  III,  Evaluation   of   Performance,   for   “Leadership”   and
“Professional  Qualities”.   There  were  no  negative  comments   and   the
applicant’s additional  rater  and  commander  concurred  with  the  EPR  as
written  in  Section  VI,  Additional  Rater’s  Comments,  and  Section   X,
Commander’s Review.

Applicant filed an appeal to the ERAB, requesting that the  EPR  be  voided.
On 17 October 2006, The ERAB denied the requested relief, stating that  they
were not convinced the original report was unjust or wrong.

Applicant’s performance profile follows:

      PERIOD ENDING                     OVERALL RATING

        22 Jul 86                            9 (firewall)
        22 Jul 87                            9 (firewall)
         4 Jan 88                            9 (firewall)
         4 Jan 89                            9 (firewall)
         4 Jan 90                            4
        20 Dec 90                            5
        25 Aug 91                            5
        25 Aug 92                            5 (firewall)
        20 Aug 93                            5 (firewall)
         8 Apr 94                            5 (firewall)
         8 Apr 95                            5 (firewall)
         8 Apr 96                            5 (firewall)
         8 Apr 97                            5 (firewall)
        15 Nov 97                            5 (firewall)
        15 Nov 98                            5 (firewall)
        15 Nov 99                            5 (firewall)
        10 Apr 00                            5 (firewall)
        16 Apr 01                            5 (firewall)
        16 Apr 02                            5 (firewall)
        16 Apr 03                            5 (firewall)
        16 Apr 04                            5 (firewall)
         2 Apr 05                            5 (firewall)
         7 Oct 05*                           5

*Contested Report

________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPPEP recommends denial since an EPR is considered to be  accurate  as
written when it becomes a matter of record.   To  effectively  challenge  an
EPR, it is necessary to hear from all members of  the  rating  chain  –  not
only for support, but also for clarification/explanation, and applicant  has
failed to provide any information/support  from  the  rating  chain  on  the
contested EPR.  In the absence of information from the evaluators,  official
substantiation of error or injustice from  the  Inspector  General  (IG)  or
Military Equal Opportunity is appropriate, but  has  not  been  provided  in
this case.  Although applicant  filed  an  IG  complaint,  it  was  returned
without  action  because  he  failed  to  exhaust  the  appropriate   appeal
procedures, and it appears the EPR was  accomplished  in  direct  accordance
with applicable regulations.

With respect to applicant’s contention that the  EPR  is  inconsistent  with
previous performance, it is not reasonable to compare one report covering  a
certain period of time with another report covering a  different  period  of
time, as this does not allow for changes  in  the  ratee’s  performance  and
does not follow the intent of the governing AFI.  The EPR  was  designed  to
provide a rating for a specific period of time based on performance, and  is
not to be based on past performance.

While  applicant  has  provided  several   memorandums   of   support   from
individuals outside the rating chain of the contested EPR, they were not  in
a better position to evaluate the  duty  performance  than  those  who  were
specifically assigned  that  responsibility,  and  their  opinions  are  not
germane to his appeal.

With respect to applicant’s contention that  his  supervisor  chose  not  to
provide any feedback before,  during,  or  after  any  supposed  decline  in
performance, and his leadership did not take a  stand  in  ensuring  he  was
given proper feedback by his supervisor, lack of counseling or feedback,  by
itself, is not sufficient  to  challenge  the  accuracy  or  justness  of  a
report.  Evaluators must confirm they did not  provide  feedback,  and  that
this directly resulted in an unfair evaluation. Only members in  the  rating
chain can confirm if counseling  was  provided.   While  current  AF  policy
requires performance feedback,  a  direct  correlation  between  information
provided during feedback sessions and EPR evaluations does  not  necessarily
exist.  For example, if, after positive  feedback,  an  evaluator  discovers
serious problems, he/she must record the problems in the EPR, even  when  it
disagrees with previous feedback.

The AFPC/DPPPEP evaluation is at Exhibit C.

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Applicant responded to the AFPC/DPPPEP advisory  in  a  memorandum  dated  4
January 2007, with a revised reply on 10 January 2007.   He  challenged  the
advisory opinion that a report is accurate as written  based  solely  on  it
becoming a matter of record since his rating chain kept the contents of  the
contested report to themselves until such time as it was made  a  matter  of
record.  Due to the strained relationship between  himself  and  his  rater,
which he did not find out about until it was too late, he feels it would  be
impossible  to  obtain  any  supporting/clarifying  documentation  from  his
rating chain.  Further,  his  rating  chain  is  the  reason  he’s  in  this
position, so he can’t imagine receiving any support from them.

He is not contending the contested  report  is  inconsistent  with  previous
ratings.  Rather, it is inconsistent with  his  performance  and  leadership
roles his rating/leadership chain continued to  place  on  him  during  this
rating period only, and  is  also  inconsistent  with  all  the  occurrences
during the rating period to include leadership/mentorship roles  and  annual
award nominations by his supervisor.

The purpose of the letters he  furnished  from  his  subordinates/co-workers
was to further paint the picture of how much his leadership  relied  on  him
and to confirm the working relationship between himself and his  rater,  and
he states they were shocked and  confused  after  his  removal  and  by  the
contents of the contested report.

The documentation he has submitted is a strong substantiation that  feedback
never occurred, and he  would  never  receive  any  documentation  from  his
rating chain to substantiate that feedback never occurred as  the  situation
was so questionable they wanted it to go away  as  quickly  and  quietly  as
possible, hence his abrupt removal.

Applicant’s complete response to the Air Force Advisory,  with  attachments,
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  error  or  injustice.   We  took  notice  of  the  applicant's
complete submission in judging the merits of the  case;  however,  we  agree
with the opinion and recommendation of  the  Air  Force  office  of  primary
responsibility and adopt its rationale as the basis for our conclusion  that
the applicant has not been the victim of an error or  injustice.   Since  an
EPR is considered to be accurate as written when  it  becomes  a  matter  of
record, and applicant has failed to  provide  any  information/support  from
the rating chain of the contested EPR, the Board cannot mitigate the  report
based on the presumption  of  regularity  in  the  conduct  of  governmental
affairs.  Therefore, in the absence of 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  Docket  Number  BC-2006-03455
in Executive Session on 6 February 2007, under the  provisions  of  AFI  36-
2603:

                       Mr. James W. Russell, III, Panel Chair
                       Ms. Mary C. Puckett, Member
                       Mr. Joseph D. Yount, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 8 Nov 06, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPEP, dated 12 Dec 06.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, Applicant, dated 10 Jan 07.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 22 Dec 06.




                                   JAMES W. RUSSELL, III
                                   Panel Chair