RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2007-03582
INDEX CODE: 111.05
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
The Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) closing-out on 31 Aug 07, be
corrected to reflect an “X” in the far right side in Section III, Block 7.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
She was not provided adequate feedback to notify her she needed
improvement, or to allow her to correct problems during the evaluation
period.
In support of her request, the applicant provided a copy of the contested
EPR, and two copies of AF IMT 931, Performance Feedback Worksheet (PFW),
dated 25 Jan 07 and 22 Mar 07.
Applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force in the grade of airman
basic on 8 Jan 98, for a term of 4 years. She was progressively promoted
to the grade of staff sergeant with a date of rank of 1 Sep 03, and
currently serves in that grade.
Her EPR profile reflects the following:
PERIOD ENDING EVALUATION OF POTENTIAL
7 Mar 00 4
31 Aug 00 5
31 Aug 01 5
31 Aug 02 5
15 Jan 04 5
31 May 04 5
31 May 05 5
31 Aug 06 5
**31 Aug 07 5
** Contested report
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
AFPC/DPSIDEP recommends denial and states in part, that they found no
procedural or administrative errors or injustices in the report. While Air
Force policy requires performance feedback for personnel, a direct
correlation between information provided during feedback sessions and the
assessments on evaluation reports does not necessarily exist. Lack of
counseling or feedback, by itself, is not sufficient to challenge the
accuracy or justness of a report. Evaluators must confirm they did not
provide counseling or feedback, and that this directly resulted in an
unfair evaluation. An evaluation report is accurate as written when it
becomes a matter of record and the ultimate responsibility to determine
what markings and/or accomplishments will be included on the report rests
with the rater, and each additional evaluator thereafter. To effectively
challenge an EPR, it is necessary to hear from all the members of the
rating chain, not only for support, but also for clarification/explanation.
The applicant has failed to provide any information/support from the
rating chain on the contested EPR. The report is not inaccurate or unfair
simply because the applicant believes it is. She must prove there is an
error or injustice and she has failed to do so in this case.
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. 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 probable 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.
_________________________________________________________________
THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:
The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not demonstrate
the existence of an 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 AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2007-
03582 in Executive Session on 4 Mar 08, under the provisions of AFI 36-
2603:
Mr. James W. Russell III, Panel Chair
Ms. Teri G. Spoutz, Member
Mr. Garry G. Sauner, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 29 Oct 07, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Available Master
Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Memo, AFPC/DPSIDEP, dated 3 Dec 07.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 14 Dec 07.
JAMES W. RUSSELL III
Panel Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2008 | BC-2007-02672
The Evaluation Reports Appeals Board (ERAB) denied her appeal because they were not convinced the report was inaccurate as written. The applicant has not provided any evidence to support her contention of not receiving feedback or being counseled on her shortcomings. 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...
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 | 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 | 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-2008-00763
She was under investigation from on/about 20 Dec 05 to 20 Jan 06. In addition, it is the commander’s responsibility to determine promotion testing eligibility. Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 23 May 08.
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-2009-03289
In support of his request, the applicant submits copies of the contested EPR, his quarterly award nomination letter, and his performance feedback worksheets. The following is a resume of his performance reports: Close-Out Date Overall Rating 25 May 01 5 25 May 02 5 9 Dec 02 5 27 May 03 5 13 Mar 04 5 13 Mar 05 5 13 Mar 06 5 +13 Mar 07 4 13 Mar 08 5 PERFORMANCE REPORTS CONTINUED: 13 Mar 09 5 + Contested Report The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application, extracted from the...
AF | BCMR | CY2008 | BC-2008-00344
f. On or about 4 Nov 05, his rater reprised against him by not recommending an end-of-tour decoration due to his stated intent to make a protected communications to the 92 ARW/IG and his commander. Further, he was never provided any feedback that his supervisor was contemplating giving him an overall “4” rating. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence...
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2006-03455
________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: The contested EPR was a Change of Reporting Official (CRO) report covering 188 days of supervision for the period 3 April 2005 through 7 October 2005. To effectively challenge an EPR, it is necessary to hear from all members of the rating chain – not only for support, but also for clarification/explanation, and applicant has failed to provide any information/support from the rating chain on the contested...
AF | BCMR | CY2009 | BC-2008-02015
During the reporting period in question she received two documented formal feedbacks by two different raters. DPSIDEP further states she has not provided any statements from her evaluators and they cannot confirm whether or not, any other form of feedback or counseling was provided. AFPC/DPSIDEP’s complete evaluation is at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded...