RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2007-03340
            INDEX CODE:  111.02
      XXXXXXX    COUNSEL:  NONE
            HEARING DESIRED:  YES

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) rendered for the period 1 June  2005
through 31 May 2006, be removed from his records.

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The front portion of his EPR was marked in the  second  row  for  all  the
performance factors.  This contradicts the comments made by his rater  and
additional  rater.   There  was  no  written  documentation,  to   include
feedbacks or annotations in his training records to support any claims  of
his inability to understand or meet standards.   The  report  was  written
more  out  of  spite  than  actual  supervision  and  evaluation  of   job
performance.  At the beginning of his evaluation period (1 July 2006)  and
during  the  initial  90-day  evaluation,  he  completed  his  seven-level
craftsman course and upgrade training prior to deploying to Iraq.  He  and
his supervisor were assigned to different sectors so he was not  available
to supervise or evaluate his daily  performance  of  assigned  duties  and
relied on his  deployed  leadership  to  conduct  additional  training  as
needed.  However, during the initial two months, his supervisor did manage
to have a meeting with him to transcribe on-the-job-training (OJT) records
to reflect his upgrade status.   Also  during  that  time  his  supervisor
conducted his initial performance feedback which was  incorrectly  written
and marked as a midterm performance feedback while  the  memo  for  record
(MFR) states it was an initial feedback and it was conducted  with  almost
90 days of supervision completed.  The Promotion Fitness Examination (PFE)
Study Guide states initial feedback sessions are held within  60  days  of
supervision.  During the period of his deployment in  Iraq,  he  performed
his duties as a fire team leader supervising and training numerous  troops
and only received  one  MFR  for  inappropriate  comments  made  during  a
counseling session with a subordinate.  However, prior to and  since  that
MFR he has consistently performed at  a  high  degree  of  excellence  and
professionalism throughout the deployment  and  it  is  reflected  by  the
comments written on the AF Form 77,  Supplemental  Evaluation  Sheet.   On
March 2006, he received a new supervisor.   His  previous  supervisor  was
assigned as the flight sergeant of bravo flight.  His new supervisor wrote
an initial performance feedback on 27 March 2006;  however,  the  feedback
was not issued until 12 April  2006.   The  previous  day  prior  to  that
session he  was  issued  a  follow-up  performance  feedback  by  his  old
supervisor with his  new  supervisor  present.   His  previous  supervisor
stated that he has shown little improvement in his job performance and his
technical knowledge needed work.  He was given under 50  days  to  improve
his discrepancies; however, during the evaluation period of 273  days  his
previous supervisor was not available to evaluate his performance for over
220 days.  At the time of the follow-up session  his  previous  supervisor
was no longer his supervisor.  In the last  two  weeks  of  the  reporting
period, he was issued a Letter of Reprimand (LOR) by  his  new  supervisor
because his subordinates OJT records did not  meet  requirements  and  had
major discrepancies.  After meeting with his previous supervisor,  he  was
removed from supervisor status based on the evaluation  that  he  did  not
have the ability to properly supervise  subordinates,  enforce  standards,
foster teamwork, counsel or lead troops.  In the applicant's rebuttal,  he
stated at the time the LOR was issued,  he  was  actually  conducting  OJT
record reviews and correcting all discrepancies he was aware of.  He  also
pointed out in his rebuttal that his OJT records did  not  meet  the  same
training requirements and had major  discrepancies  too.   Upon  returning
from his deployment in September 2006, he filed an Inspector General  (IG)
complaint on personnel in his unit for misconduct towards him  during  the
EPR process as well as other violations in other Air  Force  policies  and
use of authority.  At the end of his evaluation period, he ended  up  with
three evaluators.  Since his new supervisor was his reporting official  on
1 March 2006 he  should  have  closed  out  the  EPR.   Instead,  his  new
supervisor instead of his previous supervisor wrote the performance report
and the officer in  charge  (OIC)  was  the  additional  rater  while  his
supervisor was available to perform those duties.

In support of his request, the applicant provided  a  personal  letter,  a
copy of his AF IMT 948, Application For Correction/Removal  Of  Evaluation
Reports; an e-mail with the ERAB's  decision;  copies  of  the  IG’s  (IG)
Complaint Analysis, letter to Senator Graham, EPR Removal Letter,  AF  IMT
910, Enlisted Performance Reports; excerpts from his training records  and
several memorandums.

His complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.

________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant contracted his initial enlistment in the Regular Air Force on 12
December 1996.  He has been progressively promoted to the grade  of  staff
sergeant, having assumed that grade effective and with a date of rank of 1
September 2002.



The following is a resume of his recent EPR profile:

      PERIOD ENDING    PROMOTION RECOMMENDATION

            31 Mar 02        5
            31 May 03        5
            31 May 04        5
            31 May 05        2
            28 Feb 07 (was 31 May 06 but changed)  2(Contested Report)
             1 Feb 07        3
             1 Jul 07        5

________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPSIDEP recommends denial.  DPSIDEP states  the  applicant  filed  an
appeal through the  Evaluation  Reports  Appeal  Board  (ERAB)  under  the
provisions of AFI 36-2401, Correcting  Officers  and  Enlisted  Evaluation
Reports.  The ERAB reviewed the case and did not find enough  evidence  to
warrant voiding the contested report;  however,  the  ERAB  corrected  the
report by changing the closeout date and the “number of day's supervision”
based on the applicant’s claim  that  there  was  a  change  of  reporting
official.  The applicant provided the same documentation he  presented  to
the ERAB with other memorandums; however, DPSIDEP reviewed the applicant's
request and found no new evidence to substantiate  voiding  the  contested
report.  DPSIDEP did notice however, that  when  the  ERAB  corrected  the
report in January 2007, they should have also changed the “reason for  the
report” to change of report official (CRO) and the  feedback  date  to  20
October 2005, since the report was now considered a CRO versus  an  annual
and the change in the closeout date voided  the  11  April  2006  feedback
making the 20 October 2005 feedback the most  current  feedback  for  that
report.  These corrections have  already  been  made.   In  addition,  the
applicant explains how he met with the IG who in turn referred him to  his
commander to handle  his  complaint.   The  commander,  who  was  not  the
commander at the time of the report  in  question,  called  a  meeting  of
several individuals to review his case and determined that  the  contested
report is not indicative of his actual performance; however, there  is  no
mention of the individual who wrote the contested report and to  date,  he
is still assigned to the unit.  While the applicant's duty performance may
have improved after 31 May 2006, it does not negate the assessment of  his
rater at the time his 31 May 2006 report closed out.  Each  rating  stands
on  its  own  merit  due  to  changes  in  work  load,  job  requirements,
supervision and etc., from  one  period  to  the  next.   The  applicant's
request is purely  based  on  conjecture  and  there  is  no  evidence  to
substantiate that the content of the report was in error or  unjust.   The
complete DPSIDEP evaluation, with attachments, 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
December 2007 for review and comment within 30 days.   As  of  this  date,
this office has received no response (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 an error  or  injustice.   We  took  careful  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.  We are  not  persuaded  by  the  evidence  provided  that  the
contested report is not a true and accurate assessment of his behavior and
demonstrated potential during  the  specified  time  period  or  that  the
comments contained in  the  report  were  in  error  or  contrary  to  the
provisions of the governing instruction.  Therefore,  in  the  absence  of
persuasive evidence to the  contrary,  we  find  no  compelling  basis  to
recommend granting the relief sought in this application.

________________________________________________________________

RECOMMENDATION OF THE BOARD:

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  BC-2007-03340  in  Executive
Session on 27 February 2008, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

                 Mr. Michael J. Maglio, Panel Chair
                 Ms. Dee R. Reardon, Member
                 Ms. Josephine L. Davis, Member



The following documentary evidence pertaining to  Docket  Number  BC-2007-
03340 was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 12 October 2007, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Letter, AFPC/DPSIDEP, dated 20 November 2007.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 1 December 2006.




            MICHAEL J. MAGLIO
            Panel Chair