RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2007-02672
INDEX CODE: 111.02
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
The Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) rendered for the period 7 May 06
through 20 Nov 06 be removed from her records.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
She was not counseled on her shortcomings and she did not receive midterm
feedback. The negative comments on the report are vague and unfounded.
In support of her application, she provided a copy of her Joint Service
Achievement Medal, copies of her EPRs, and a virtual MPF printout.
Her complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The applicant is currently serving on active duty in the grade of senior
airman.
On 31 Jan 07, the applicant received a referral EPR for the period ending
20 Nov 06. She filed an appeal under the provisions of AFI 36-2401,
Correcting Officer and Enlisted Evaluation Reports. The Evaluation Reports
Appeals Board (ERAB) denied her appeal because they were not convinced the
report was inaccurate as written.
The applicant’s performance report profile as a SrA reflects the following:
PERIOD ENDING OVERALL EVALUATION
5 Jul 04 5
6 May 05 5
6 May 06 5
*20 Nov 06 4
* Contested Report
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
AFPC/DPSIDEP recommends the requested relief be denied. DPSIDEP states
although the governing Air Force Instruction requires documented feedback
sessions, 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, will not in itself,
invalidate any subsequent performance reports. The applicant has not
provided any evidence to support her contention of not receiving feedback
or being counseled on her shortcomings. It is the ratee’s responsibility
to notify the rater, the rater’s rater, when required or requested feedback
did not take place. She has not shown what attempts she made to ensure the
feedback was accomplished. The memorandum she provides from the Area
Defense Counsel (ADC) addresses issues they felt were inaccurate; however,
DPSIDEP reviewed the report and determined the ADC was inaccurate in the
memorandum. DPSIDEP adds that an evaluation report is considered to
represent the rating chain’s best judgment at the time it was rendered.
Once a report is accepted for file, only strong evidence to the contrary
warrants removal of the report from the record.
The complete AFPC/DPSIDEP 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 30 Nov
07, for review and response within 30 days. As of this date, no response
has been received by this office.
_________________________________________________________________
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 an error or an injustice. After thoroughly reviewing the
evidence of record, we are not persuaded that relief should be granted.
Applicant's contentions are duly noted; however, we do not find these
assertions, in and by themselves, sufficiently persuasive to override the
rationale provided by the Air Force office of primary responsibility.
Therefore, we adopt the rationale expressed as basis for our conclusion
that she 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 in this application.
_________________________________________________________________
The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2007-
02672 in Executive Session on 13 Feb 08, under the provisions of AFI 36-
2603:
Mr. James W. Russell III, Panel Chair
Ms. Barbara J. Barger, Member
Mr. James L. Sommer, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 14 Aug 07 w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Letter, AFPC/DPSIDEP, dated 25 Oct 07.
Exhibit C. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 30 Nov 07.
JAMES W. RUSSELL III
Panel Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2008 | BC-2007-03582
Evaluators must confirm they did not provide counseling or feedback, and that this directly resulted in an unfair evaluation. The complete DPSIDEP 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 14 Dec 07, for review and comment within 30 days. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES...
AF | BCMR | CY2009 | BC-2008-02144
The complete DPSIDEP 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 25 July 2008 for review and comment within 30 days. In this case, the rater provided a mid-term feedback; and although it was given to the ratee three months prior to the closeout date of the contested report, we agree with the determination of AFPC/DPSIDEP that...
AF | BCMR | CY2009 | BC-2009-00137
When he questioned his supervisor about his performance rating, he was told he would receive a five rating. The complete DPSIDEP 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 6 Mar 09 for review and comment within 30 days. In addition, we note the feedback worksheet provided by the applicant supports the rating he received.
AF | BCMR | CY2010 | BC-2009-02670
While Air Force policy requires performance feedback for personnel, a direct correlation between the information provided during a feedback session, and the assessment on evaluation reports does not necessarily exist. As of this date, this office has received no response (Exhibit C). 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...
AF | BCMR | CY2010 | BC-2009-02730
The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit E. _________________________________________________________________ ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION: HQ AFPC/DPSIDEP recommends denial. The complete DPSIDEP evaluation is at Exhibit F. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF THE ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION: A copy of the additional Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 22 Jun 10, for review and comment...
AF | BCMR | CY2010 | BC-2010-04487
The complete DPSIDEP evaluation is at Exhibit D. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant contends there are multiple administrative errors and this is an injustice because of her medical condition. She was never given a feedback during this rating period. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did...
AF | BCMR | CY2009 | BC-2009-00541
If there was a personality conflict between the applicant and the rater which was of such magnitude the rater could not be objective, the additional rater, or even the first sergeant and commander would have been aware of the situation and would have made any necessary adjustments to the applicants EPR; or at least supported the applicants appeal request. However, the applicant did not provide any statements from other applicable evaluators. Evaluators must confirm they did not provide...
AF | BCMR | CY2008 | BC-2007-03091
Section III, Evaluation of Performance, contains ratings marked one block to the left by his rater, the squadron commander, and the additional rater, the group commander, for Duty performance and Managerial Skills. If the applicant had provided some supporting documentation that the feedback date was in error, the ERAB would have corrected the report to reflect the accurate date and/or applicable statement versus voiding the report. The applicant provided no evidence to support his claim.
AF | BCMR | CY2009 | bc-2009-01709
On 4 Feb 08, the applicant’s rater requested input from the previous rater for the EPR closing 28 Jan 08. On 13 Feb 08, the applicant appealed the EPR to the Evaluation Reports Appeal Board (ERAB) contending the EPR indicated incorrect dates of supervision. A complete copy of the DPSIDEP evaluation is at Exhibit C.
AF | BCMR | CY2009 | BC-2008-02713
The complete DPSIDEP evaluation, with attachment, is at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 3 October 2008 for review and comment within 30 days. As of this date, this office has received no response. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified that the evidence...