RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2007-00914
            INDEX CODE:  111.05

      XXXXXXX    COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED: YES


MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:  25 SEP 2008


___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

Her enlisted performance report (EPR) closing 7 Feb 07 be removed.

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

She was not given a mid-term feedback and was  not  aware  of  sub-
standard  performance.   The  rater’s  comments  show  no  negative
remarks except  for  the  last  line  in  Section  VI.   The  date,
29 Jan 07, is  incorrect  because  she  only  received  an  initial
feedback on 28 Sep 06; cited rater was deployed during the  Jan-Apr
time frame.

Additionally, she had five different supervisors  during  the  last
year giving her no continuity or stable  supervision;  section  III
either  met  or  exceeded  all  standards.   She  feels   the   EPR
contradicts itself and does not accurately reflect her performance.

She is confused about exactly what her role is, what is expected of
her, and the status of her current progression.

In support of her appeal, applicant submitted a  copy  of  her  EPR
closing 7 Feb 07; Change of reporting official request, dated 8 Sep
06; a copy of Performance Feedback Notification, dated  6  Nov  06,
and copy of Performance Feedback Worksheet (PFW), dated 25 Sep 06.

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

___________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force  on  2  May  04  for  a
period of four years.  She  is  currently  assigned  as  a  Traffic
Management Journeyman.  Her current grade  is  airman  first  class
with a date of rank of 4 Sep 05.

A profile of her enlisted performance reports follows:

            PERIOD CLOSING              OVERALL EVALUATION

                 07 Feb 06                                    4
*                07 Feb 07                                    2

* Contested Report reflects last performance feedback was accomplished on
29 Jan 07.

___________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

HQ AFPC/DPPPEP reviewed this application and recommended denial.

Applicant contends she did not receive a  formal  midterm  feedback
session during the reporting period.  AFI 36-2406, para 2.2, ratees
should notify the rater, and if necessary, the rater’s rater when a
required or requested feedback session does not take  place.   Only
members in the rating chain can confirm if counseling was provided.
  While  documented  feedback  sessions  are  required,  a   direct
correlation between information provided during  feedback  sessions
and the assessments on evaluation reports do not necessarily exist.
 For example, if after a positive feedback  session,  an  evaluator
discovers serious problems, he or she must record the  problems  in
the evaluation report even when  it  disagrees  with  the  previous
feedback.  There may be occasions when feedback  was  not  provided
during a reporting period.  A rater’s failure to conduct a required
or requested feedback session does not itself invalidate an EPR.

The applicant contends she had five  different  supervisors  within
the last year giving her no continuity or stable supervision.   Air
Force does not require the designated rater  to  be  the  immediate
supervisor.  Evaluators are  responsible  for  rendering  fair  and
accurate EPRs and ensuring the comments support  the  rating.   The
Air Force charges the rater to rate according to their opinions and
impressions of the general level of performance of  the  Air  Force
personnel in the various grades.

Air Force policy is  that  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 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.

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 4 May 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 she did not receive proper feedback and that she  was
not aware of her  substandard  performance  which  resulted  in  an
overall rating of a “2.”  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 her  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 her 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.

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   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 Docket  Number
BC-2007-00914 in Executive Session  on  26  June  2007,  under  the
provisions of AFI 36-2603:

      Ms. Patricia J. Zarodkiewicz, Vice Chair
      Mr. Jeffery R. Shelton, Member
      Ms. Dee R. Reardon, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 14 Mar 07, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPPEP, dated 18 Apr 07.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 4 May 07.




                                   PATRICIA J. ZARODKIEWICZ
                                   Vice Chair