RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:                       DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2007-03115
                                             INDEX CODE:  111.05
      XXXXXXXXXXXX                      COUNSEL:  NONE

                                             HEARING DESIRED:  YES

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

Enlisted Performance Reports (EPRs) with closeout dates of 9 September  2002
and 9 September 2004 be removed from his records.

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He did not have an opportunity  to  review  either  EPR  as  they  were  not
completed in a timely  manner.   Additionally,  no  feedback  detailing  any
problems in his performance was accomplished as required by  the  Air  Force
Instruction (AFI).

He is an Air Force civilian and was stationed in Turkey  from  May  2003  to
August 2006.  When he left for Turkey, the 2002 EPR had not been  finalized.
 He did not receive, nor was input requested, for either EPR.

In support of his appeal, he has provided copies of the contested EPRs.

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

________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The EPR closing 9 September 2002 was  a  Biennial  Report  with  an  overall
rating in Section IV, Promotion Recommendation, of  “3” (Consider)  by  both
the Rater and Additional  Rater.   Section  V,  Last  Performance  Feedback,
indicates that his last performance feedback was accomplished on  2 February
2002.

The EPR closing 9 September 2004 was  a  Biennial  Report  with  an  overall
rating in Section IV, Promotion Recommendation, of  “3” (Consider)  by  both
the Rater and Additional Rater.  Section V,  Rater’s  Comments,  stated,  in
part, “… has been on a 4T profile since January 2003  following  surgery  in
2002.  He performed October and November 2002 UTAs during  this  performance
review period.  His availability is too  limited  to  allow  for  a  typical
review.”  Section V, Last Performance Feedback, also  states,  in  part,  “…
has been on a 4T profile since January 2003.  In addition, he  relocated  to
Turkey in May 2003, and has not returned to the unit during a Unit  Training
Assembly (UTA) since relocating.”

Neither EPR was a referral EPR, and the Commander concurred with  both  EPRs
in  Section  VII,  Commander’s  Review.   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).  All indicators are  marked
that the applicant should be considered for promotion.

________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

ARPC/DPB recommends denial as the applicant has not  provided  any  evidence
that the EPRs are in error and should be removed, and the fact that lack  of
feedback does not invalidate a report. While he states he  did  not  receive
feedback, the EPR closing 9 September 2002  indicates  feedback  was  given,
and the EPR closing 9 September 2004 indicates  he  was  not  available  for
feedback.

Although the EPRs were  not  completed  and  forwarded  to  the  applicant’s
servicing Military Personnel Flight (MPF) within 60 days as required by  AFI
36-2406, paragraph 3.8.10.1 states the ratee  will  not  be  shown  the  EPR
until the MPF files it in the Unit Personnel record Group unless the EPR  is
a referral report.  Neither EPR was a referral report.

AFI 36-2406, paragraph 2.3, states a rater’s failure to conduct  a  required
or requested feedback session,  or  document  a  session  on  a  Performance
Feedback Worksheet, does not invalidate any subsequent  performance  report.
The EPR, closing 9 September 2002, documents  feedback  was  conducted,  and
the report, closing 9 September  2004,  clearly  states  the  applicant  was
unavailable for feedback.

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 B.

________________________________________________________________



APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A complete copy of the evaluation was  forwarded  to  the  applicant  on  21
December 2007, for review and comment, within 30 days.  However, 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  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.   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-2007-03115
in Executive Session on 12 February 2008, under the provisions  of  AFI  36-
2603:
                       Ms. Charlene M. Bradley, Panel Chair
                       Ms. Karen A. Holloman, Member
                       Mr. Wallace F. Beard, Jr., Member



                                             DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2007-03115

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 12 Mar 07, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Letter, ARPC/DPB, dated 18 Dec 08 [sic].
    Exhibit C.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 21 Dec 07.




                                   CHARLENE M. BRADLEY
                                   Panel Chair