RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2006-03769
            INDEX CODE:  111.02

      XXXXXXX    COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED: NO


MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:  15 JUN 2008


___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His  rating  on  his  Enlisted  Performance  Report  (EPR)  closing
19 May 2006,  be  changed  from  an  overall  “4”  to  a  “5”;  the
endorsement level be  upgraded  to  “Senior  Rater  Deputy”  versus
“Intermediate Level,” and the corrected  report  be  considered  by
supplemental promotion for the FY07 promotion package.

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He received a significant markdown in  Section  III,  Item  3,  for
leadership and a final rating of “4” in  Block  IV.   Applicant  is
contesting these ratings because he did not receive proper feedback
during the rating period.  He feels  this  rating  was  unjustified
because he was not given an opportunity for improvement.

In support of his appeal, applicant submitted a  copy  of  his  EPR
closing 19 May 2006.

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

___________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 5 Aug  87.   He  was
progressively promoted to the rank of master sergeant on 1 Jun  04.
He is currently serving with the Duty  Title  of  Aircraft  Section
Chief.

A resume of applicant’s EPR profile follows:

            PERIOD CLOSING              OVERALL EVALUATION

                 17 Dec 97                                    5
                 17 Dec 98                                    5
                 17 Dec 99                                    5
                 17 Dec 00                                    5
                 17 Dec 01                                    5
                 01 Jul 02                                    5
                 01 Jul 03                                    5
                 01 Jul 04                                    5
                 19 May 05                                    5
*                19 May 06                                    4

* - The contested report rendered  for  the  period  20  May  05  –
19 May 06,  reflects  365  days  of  supervision  and   performance
feedback was accomplished on 13 Jan 06.

The applicant did not file an appeal under the provisions of AFI 36-
2401, Correcting Officer and Enlisted Evaluation Reports.

___________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

HQ AFPC/DPPPEP reviewed this application and recommended denial.

The applicant states he was never provided formal written  feedback
during the reporting period.  He feels the rating is unjust because
his rater failed to provide feedback and allow him  to  improve  in
the areas in which he was marked down.  The  applicant  alleges  he
was not rendered a  written  performance  feedback.   AFI  36-2403,
paragraph 2.8, states the ratee should "notify the  rater  and,  if
necessary, the rater's rater when a required or requested  feedback
session does not take place."  The applicant does not state whether
he requested a feedback session from his rater, nor does  he  state
he notified the rater  or  the  rater's  rater  when  the  required
feedback session did not  take  place.   Regardless,  AFI  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."

Statements from the evaluators  during  the  contested  period  are
conspicuously absent.   In  order  to  successfully  challenge  the
validity of an evaluation report, it is important to hear from  the
evaluators--not  necessarily  for  support,  but   at   least   for
clarification/explanation.  The applicant has not provided any such
documentation.  Without benefit of these statements,  we  can  only
conclude the EPR is accurate as written.

Air Force policy is  that  an  evaluation  report  is  accurate  as
written when it becomes a matter  of  record.   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.  It appears the reports were accomplished in
direct accordance with applicable regulations.   A  report  is  not
erroneous or unfair because the applicant believes  it  contributed
to a nonselection or promotion or may impact  future  promotion  or
career opportunities. The Board recognizes that  non-selection  for
promotion is, for many,  a  traumatic  event,  and  the  desire  to
overturn that  non-selection  is  powerful  motivation  to  appeal.
However, the Board is careful to keep the promotion and  evaluation
issues separated, and to focus on the evaluation report only.   The
simple willingness by evaluators to upgrade,  rewrite,  or  void  a
report is not a valid basis for
doing so.

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 26 Jan 07 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 proper feedback which resulted  in
him receiving an overall rating of a “4” versus a  “5.”   We  noted
the comments  provided  by  the  applicant;  however  we  found  no
evidence to show the contested report was not an accurate  or  fair
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-2006-03769 in Executive Session on  13  March  2007,  under  the
provisions of AFI 36-2603:

      Mr. Wayne R. Gracie, Panel Chair
      Mr. Don H. Kendrick, Member
      Mr. Steven A. Cantrell, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 24 Dec 06.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPPEP, dated 11 Jan 07.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 26 Jan 07.




                                   WAYNE R. GRACIE
                                   Panel Chair