RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:                       DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2007-03091
                                             INDEX CODE:  111.05
      XXXXXXXXXXXXXX                    COUNSEL:  NONE

                                             HEARING DESIRED:  NO

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) for the period 5 June 2004  through  4
June 2005 be removed from his records.

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

His EPR states that a feedback session was accomplished on 12 January  2005.
 His initial and only formal feedback session took  place  on  4  May  2005,
three days before he went TDY to Canada for 52 days for EXERCISE MAPLE  FLAG
38.

Given that he was TDY, he was not afforded the time or  the  opportunity  to
improve the deficiencies that his rater marked him down on.  The 12  January
2005 feedback date was intentionally used to give  the  impression  that  he
had been given ample time to improve the deficiencies that resulted  in  his
mark-downs in  Duty  Performance  and  Managerial  Skills  in  Section  III,
Evaluation of Performance, of the contested EPR.

In support of his appeal, he has provided copies of a  letter  from  a  57th
AMX/CSS  representative  stating  there   were   no   Performance   Feedback
Notifications  for  his  2005  Reports,  an  e-mail  trail  concerning  late
decorations and comments by his commander/rater, a draft and final copy  the
contested report, and e-mails concerning his performance  feedback  sessions
being rescheduled.

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

________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant is currently in the Regular Air Force serving in the grade  of
master sergeant (E-7).  The contested EPR  was  an  Annual  Report  for  the
period 5 June 2004 – 4 June 2005 for his performance as  a  first  sergeant.
The EPR is an overall  “5”  rating  (Immediate  Promotion)  in  Section  IV,
Promotion Recommendation.  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.

Applicant’s Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) profile since 1998 follows:

            PERIOD ENDING                    EVALUATION

             6 Jul 98                              5 (firewall)
             6 Jul 99                              5 (firewall)
             6 Jul 00                              5 (firewall)
             6 Jul 01                              4
             6 Jul 02                              5
            6 Jul 03                               5 (firewall)
            4 Jun 04                               5 (firewall)
      *      4 Jun 05                              5
            4 Jun 06                               5 (firewall)
            4 Jun 07                               5 (firewall)



*  Contested Report

________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPSIDEP  recommends  denial  as  the  applicant  provided  no  evidence
supporting the fact the feedback date is incorrect.  The applicant  did  not
file an appeal with the Evaluation Reports Appeals  Board  (ERAB);  however,
this appeal was forwarded to  the  ERAB  for  review  and  they  recommended
denial because they were not convinced the  report  was  inaccurate  due  to
lack of evidence.

In accordance with (IAW) Air  Force  Instruction  (AFI)  36-2406,  paragraph
2.10, while documented feedback sessions are required, they do  not  replace
normal  day-to-day  feedback.   As  a  first  sergeant,  his  job   was   to
communicate and interact with the commander (his rater)  daily.   A  rater’s
failure to conduct a required or requested feedback session, or to  document
the session on a Performance Feedback Worksheet (PFW), will not, in  and  of
itself, invalidate any subsequent performance  reports.   Additionally,  IAW
paragraph 2.2.1.3, it is the ratee’s  responsibility  to  notify  the  rater
and, if necessary, the rater’s rater, when required  or  requested  feedback
did not take place.  The applicant did not state what attempts  he  made  to
ensure feedback was accomplished.

Furthermore, IAW  AFI  36-2401,  paragraph  1.3,  the  requested  relief  is
prohibited in that AFPC/DPSIDEP will not approve voiding a report  when  the
error or injustice can be corrected administratively.  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.

An evaluation report is considered to  represent  the  rating  chain’s  best
judgment at the time it is rendered.  Once a report is  accepted  for  file,
only strong evidence to the contrary warrants removal of the report from  an
applicant’s records.  The burden of proof is on the applicant,  and  he  has
provided none.  Additionally, as a first sergeant, whose  job  is  to  daily
communicate with the commander on all enlisted matters, they  find  it  hard
to believe the commander did not give him some kind of feedback, even if  it
was only verbal.

If the applicant can provide concrete evidence that  the  feedback  date  is
incorrect, he may resubmit his case to the ERAB for correction.

The AFPC/DPSIDEP evaluation is at Exhibit C.

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

He intends to submit an AF Form 948 in an effort to have the  contested  EPR
reflect the correct feedback date.  The only  formal  feedback  he  received
during this rating period occurred on 4 May 2005.   All  of  the  supporting
documentation  he  submitted  with  his  initial  application   raises   the
suspicion as to why the  rater  used  a  date  of  12 January  2005  in  the
feedback block of the EPR.

The applicant’s complete response 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,  he  has  provided  no  evidence
that the feedback date indicated on the EPR was intentionally fabricated  or
that the report is inaccurate as written.   Therefore,  in  the  absence  of
evidence to the contrary, we find no compelling basis to recommend  granting
the relief sought in this application.

________________________________________________________________

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-2007-03091
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 21 Sep 07, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Available Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPSIDEP, dated 5 Dec 07.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 11 Jan 08.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, Applicant, dated 29 Jan 08.




                                   WAYNE R. GRACIE
                                   Panel Chair