RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2006-03817
            INDEX CODE:  111.05

      XXXXXXXXXXX      COUNSEL:  NOT INDICATED

            HEARING DESIRED:  YES

MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:  17 JUN 2008

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

The Enlisted Performance Report  (EPR)  closing  out  on  1  July  2004,  be
declared void and removed from his records.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The report is unjust, because he  received  excellent  feedback  during  the
reporting period and comments are strong compared to the overall rating.

In support of his request, the applicant provided a personal statement,  Air
Force Form 931, Performance Feedback Worksheet  (PFW),  Evaluations  Reports
Appeal   Board   (ERAB)   Decision,   AF   IMT    Form    Application    for
Correction/Removal of Evaluation Reports, AF Form 623A, On-The-Job  Training
Record Continuation Sheet, and AF IMT 910, Enlisted Performance Report.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air  Force  in  the  grade  of  airman
basic on 14 March 1990, for  a  term  of  4  years.   He  was  progressively
promoted to the grade of staff sergeant and currently serves in that grade.







His EPR profile reflects the following:

      PERIOD ENDING    EVALUATION OF POTENTIAL

          14 Nov 91          4
           2 Aug 93          5
           4 Nov 94          5
          11 Nov 95          4
          11 Nov 96          4
          11 Nov 97          4
          11 Nov 98          4
          11 Nov 99          5
          30 Jul 99          5
           1 Oct 00          5
           1 Oct 01          5
           2 Oct 02          5
           1 Jul 03          5
          *1 Jul 04          4
           1 Jul 05          5
           1 Jul 06          5

* Contested report

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPPEP recommends denial. DPPPEP  states  in  part,  the  applicant  is
attempting to relate the ratings on the EPR to  the  markings  on  the  PFW.
This is an inappropriate comparison and is inconsistent  with  the  Enlisted
Evaluation system.  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.  Every exceptional performer does not possess  outstanding  promotion
potential and evaluators need to make that clear on  the  EPRs  they  write.
It is not reasonable to compare one report  covering  a  certain  period  of
time with another report covering a different period  of  time.   This  does
not allow for changes in the ratee’s performance and  does  not  follow  the
intent of the governing regulation.  The  EPR  was  designed  to  provide  a
rating for a specific period of time based on the performance  noted  during
that period, not based on previous performance.   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 of  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
non-selection for  promotion  or  may  impact  future  promotion  or  career
opportunities.   The  Board  recognizes  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.  You must prove the  report  is  erroneous  or  unjust  based  on  its
content.

The complete evaluation is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant states the performance feedback work sheet is used to  tell  a
ratee what is expected regarding duty performance and how well  expectations
are being met.  His supervisor gave him a perfect  rating  on  his  feedback
and there was no indication his performance was less than  perfect.   During
the rating period in question, he was selected as the worker of the  quarter
while unsupervised.  The rater refused to change his mind and insists  there
are numerous infractions in his personal information file,  which  has  been
reviewed by his chain of command and proven to be false.

The complete response, with attachments, is at Exhibit E.

_________________________________________________________________

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 the  contested  EPR
is unjust and should be removed  from  his  records.   After  reviewing  the
documentation provided by the applicant and  the  evidence  of  record,  the
Board  finds  no  persuasive  evidence  showing  the  applicant  was   rated
unfairly; the report is in error; or that the  evaluators  were  biased  and
prejudiced against the applicant.   In  our  opinion,  the  evaluators  were
responsible for assessing the applicant’s performance during the  period  in
question and are presumed to have rendered his  evaluation  based  on  their
observation of his performance.  In view of this, and since  he  has  failed
to provide support from his rating chain agreeing  to  change  his  EPR,  we
agree with the opinions 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.  In  the  absence  of  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 issue(s) 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 an 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-
03817 in Executive Session on 24 May 2007, under the provisions of  AFI  36-
2603:

                 Ms. B.J. White-Olson, Panel Chair
                 Ms. Glenda H. Scheiner, Member
                 Mr. Mark J. Novitski, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 8 Dec 06, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  Memo, AFPC/DPPPEP, dated 18 Jan 07.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 26 Jan 07.
   Exhibit E.  Letter, Applicant, undated, w/atchs.





                                   B.J. WHITE-OLSON
                                   Panel Chair