RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2007-00777
            INDEX CODE:  111.05
            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  YES

MANDATORY COMPLETION DATE:  14 OCTOBER 2008

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) for the period 30  Jul  2001  thru  29
Jul 2002 be amended or removed from his records.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The last three bullets on his 30 Jul 01 thru 29 Jul 2002 EPR  are  duplicate
bullets of the 5th, 6th, and 7th bullets in his 30  Jul  2000  thru  29  Jul
2001 EPR.  The feedback information on the report incorrectly states he  was
given feedback during a time he had  just  completed  the  Military  Working
Supervisor’s Course. He was not available for feedback; therefore,  feedback
was not done.   The use of previous  accomplishments  impacted  his  overall
ratings on the front of the report.

This report will be a part of  his  Senior  Noncommissioned  Officer  (SNCO)
board for the next testing cycle.

In support of the application, the applicant submits copies of his EPRs  for
the periods in question.

The applicant's complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant is currently serving on active duty in  the  grade  of  master
sergeant (E-7) with a date of rank of 1 Mar 06.

A resume of his last 10 EPRs follows:

Closeout Date          Overall Rating

 10 Jun 97             5
 10 Jun 98             5
 10 Jun 99             5
 29 Jul 00             5
 29 Jul 01             5
*29 Jul 02             5
 29 Jul 03             5
 01 Jul 04             5
 01 Jul 05             5
 01 Jul 06             5

*Contested Report.

The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application, extracted  from
the applicant’s military records, are contained in the  letter  prepared  by
the appropriate office of the Air Force at Exhibit (C).

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

HQ AFPC/DPPPEP recommends denial.

DPPPEP states the applicant did not file an appeal under the  provisions  of
AFI 36-2401, Correcting Officer and Enlisted Evaluation Reports, 20 Feb  04.


DPPPEP notes AFI 36-2406, paragraph 3.7.6 states, “Do not  include  comments
regarding events which occurred in a previous reporting period,  unless  the
events add significantly to the evaluation report, were  not  known  to  and
considered by the previous evaluators, and were not previously reflected  in
an evaluation report.”  This reference does not  apply  to  the  applicant’s
case, because he was deployed to the same  location  during  both  reporting
periods.   DPPPEP  opines  that  the  evaluators  referenced   significantly
different  accomplishments  on  both  reports  and  that  the  comments  are
accurate reflections of  performance  during  the  reporting  periods.   The
applicant was deployed to Timor for a portion of both reporting periods  and
the reports were processed in direct compliance with current regulations.

DPPPEP points out AFI 36-2406 states, “While  documented  feedback  sessions
are required by this instruction, 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.   No
evidence was presented to validate the applicant’s claim; however,  lack  of
documented feedback is not cause to void an evaluation.  Evaluations  should
not be voided when they can be corrected administratively.

If the Board finds in favor of the applicant, DPPPEP recommends  either  the
original raters be required to submit  new  bullets  or  only  the  specific
comments highlighted  by  the  applicant  be  removed.   In  regard  to  the
feedback date, DPPPEP recommends removing the feedback date  from  the  2002
report and adding the statement “Feedback was not accomplished  during  this
rating period.”

The complete DPPPEP 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 27  Apr
07 for review and comment within 30 days.  As of this date, this office  has
received no response (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 probable error  or  injustice.   We  carefully  considered  the
applicant’s complete submission in judging the merits of the case;  however,
we are not persuaded that the contested report should be  removed  from  his
records.  Other than his own assertions,  the  applicant  has  not  provided
sufficient evidence to substantiate  the  contested  report  was  improperly
rendered.  We defer to AFPC/DPPPEP on the  administrative  correction  taken
on the corrected feedback report.  Therefore, in the absence  of  compelling
evidence to the contrary, we find no basis to grant  the  relief  sought  in
this application.

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  BC-2007-00777  in
Executive Session on 28 June 2007, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

               Ms. B. J. White-Olson, Panel Chair
               Ms. Mary C. Puckett, Member
               Ms. Renee M. Collier, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 5 Mar 07, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPEP, dated 19 Apr 07.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 27 Apr 07.




                                   B. J. WHITE-OLSON
                                   Panel Chair