RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:                       DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2007-01327
                                             INDEX CODE:  111.05
      XXXXXXXXXXXXX                     COUNSEL:  NONE

                                             HEARING DESIRED:  YES

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

The Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) for the period 8 April 2002 through  7
April 2004 be removed from her records.

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The EPR did not reflect a true representation of her  work,  and  the  final
ratings are inconsistent with her exemplary military record.   She  was  not
counseled as to any performance issues, and would not  have  been  nominated
for Senior Non-Commissioned Officer (SNCO) of the Year in November  2002  if
performance was an issue.

During the period of this EPR, she  was  promoted  to  the  rank  of  senior
master sergeant (E-8  –  SMSgt),  recommended  by  her  unit  commander  and
competed for SNCO of the Year, named the unit Medic of the  Month  in  March
and September 2002, and received numerous other accolades.

During the  rating  period,  she  received  only  one  Performance  Feedback
Worksheet (PFW) session with her then-supervisor.   She  left  the  unit  in
August 2003 because she could not continue to commute to Colorado  from  New
Jersey to perform Unit Training Assemblies (UTAs)  and  Annual  Tours.   She
requested a  final  PFW  prior  to  her  departure  and  on  numerous  other
occasions, and never received one.

The EPR contains very low ratings, but not low enough  to  be  considered  a
referral EPR that she could rebut.  Unfortunately,  she  is  concerned  that
these actions were intentional.  This EPR continues to hinder her Air  Force
career progression, limits senior enlisted opportunities, and  is  in  stark
contrast  to  the  supporting  documentation  she  has  included  with  this
application.

In support of her appeal, she has provided copies of a  personal  statement,
the contested EPR and EPRs closing-out 7 April 2002, 20 November  2000,  and
20 November 1998, her nomination for SNCO of the Year for the period 1  June
– 1 October 2002, and Unit Medic of the Month documentation.

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

________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The  applicant  is  currently  an  Air  Force   Reserve   (AFR)   Individual
Mobilization Augmentee (IMA) assigned to Andrews  AFB,  MD.   The  contested
EPR was rendered while she was assigned to the AFR Unit Program at  Peterson
AFB, CO.

The EPR was a Biennial Report for the  period  from  8  April  2002  through
7 April 2004, was not a referral EPR, and none  of  the  performance  blocks
contained in Section III are marked to the far left (indicating  substandard
duty performance/not meeting expectations) or to the far  right  (indicating
outstanding performance/exceeding  expectations).   The  commander  was  the
additional rater  and  concurred  with  the  report  as  written.   The  EPR
contained an overall rating in  Section  IV,  Promotion  Recommendation,  of
“2” (Not Recommended at This Time) by both the rater and  additional  rater.
Section V, Last Performance Feedback, indicates that  her  last  performance
feedback was accomplished on 2 June 2003.

The available EPR profile pertaining to the applicant follows:

            PERIOD ENDING                    EVALUATION

             20 Nov 1998                           4
             20 Nov 2000                           5
              7 Apr 2002                           5
      *       7 Apr 2004                           2
             30 Apr 2006                           5 (firewall)

*  Contested Report

________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

ARPC/DPB  recommends  denial  as  the  applicant  has  not  provided  strong
evidence that the EPR is in error and should be removed.  The EPR  evaluates
performance for the entire period, and her  accomplishments  in  2002  would
not invalidate the evaluation for the entire period of time covered.   While
she contends she did not receive feedback, the EPR indicates otherwise.

The fact that the applicant was nominated for  SNCO  of  the  Year  in  2002
would not invalidate an EPR that  did  not  closeout  until  7  April  2004.
Ratings are not erroneous or  unjust  because  they  are  inconsistent  with
other ratings received.  The EPR evaluates  performance  during  a  specific
period and reflects performance, conduct, and  potential  at  that  time  in
that position.  There is a basic assumption that all evaluation reports  are
accurate  and  objective,  and  an  applicant  asking  for  removal   of   a
performance report must provide strong evidence  to  overcome  the  report’s
presumed validity.

The ARPC/DPB evaluation is at Exhibit C.

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The  contested  EPR  does  not  accurately  reflect  her  true  performance,
conduct, or potential during the abbreviated  rating  period.   The  EPR  is
erroneous in that it reflects an incorrect reporting period due to the  fact
that her last UTA with the 302nd ASTS was performed on 10  August  2003  and
she did not participate with this unit for pay/points after this  date,  and
reflects a feedback session date of 2 June 2003 that did not occur  and  was
fabricated for reasons unknown to her.  The EPR does not mention or  comment
as to the extensive work done by the work center  under  her  leadership  to
receive a score of fully compliant by a Health Services Inspection (HSI)  in
August 2003, or the fact that she left the unit in August  2003  and,  while
in transition to IMA status, did not participate  in  UTAs  for  almost  one
year of the EPR’s inclusive rating period.  The two EPRs prior to,  and  the
EPR immediately following the contested EPR represent stark and  unexplained
performance contrasts which are not supported by documented  informal/formal
feedback sessions. She was not aware of any performance  issues  during  the
true evaluation period of May 2002 – August 2003.

The applicant’s 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.   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.   The
applicant’s  contentions  are  noted;  however,   the   available   evidence
indicates that although she contends she did not participate with  the  unit
after August 2003, she was still assigned to the unit on the  closeout  date
of the EPR and the biennial reporting period  is  therefore  valid.   Should
she provide evidence that she formally  requested  reassignment  to  a  non-
participating status or to another unit prior to the closeout  date  of  the
EPR, or that the feedback date indicated  on  the  EPR  was  fabricated,  we
would be willing to reconsider her application.  Therefore, in  the  absence
of 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(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 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-2007-01327
in Executive Session on 21 February 2008, under the provisions  of  AFI  36-
2603:

                       Mr. Wayne R. Gracie, Panel Chair
                       Ms. Lea Gallogly, Member
                       Mr. Joseph D. Yount, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 25 Apr 07, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Letter, ARPC/DPB, dated 12 Dec 08 [sic].
    Exhibit C.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 4 Jan 08.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, Applicant, dated 1 Feb 08, w/atchs.




                                   WAYNE R. GRACIE
                                   Panel Chair