RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2007-03646
            INDEX CODE:  111.02
      XXXXXXX    COUNSEL:  NONE
            HEARING DESIRED:  NO

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) rendered for the period  of  28  April
2003 to 27 April 2004, be removed from his records.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

His report was not written by the correct  rater  and  lacks  counseling  or
performance feedback.  During the reporting period, he had two  supervisors.
 One was his supervisor for a total of  179  days,  and  then  a  change  of
reporting  official  resulted  in  another  supervisor  who  rated  him  the
remainder of the reporting period.  Under the  first  supervisor,  he  never
received formal performance feedback to set  expectations  despite  verbally
requesting it on three occasions.  From 1 May 2003  to  26 October  2003  he
was working under the first supervisor.  From 27 October 2003  to  27  April
2004 he was working for the second supervisor who should  have  written  the
report.  The first supervisor who  actually  wrote  the  report  refuses  to
provide an explanation for writing the report for the entire  year  when  he
only supervised him for the first six months.  He also  refused  to  provide
reasons for the ratings he gave considering he did not provide feedback  and
performance expectations.


In support of  his  request,  the  applicant  provided  a  personal  letter,
statements  in  support  of  his  application,  AF   Forms   910,   Enlisted
Performance Report, and data extracted from his military personnel records.


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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant contracted his initial enlistment in the Regular Air Force  on  28
August 1996.  He has been progressively promoted to the grade  of  technical
sergeant (TSgt), having assumed that grade effective  and  with  a  date  of
rank of 1 January 2007.

The following is a resume of his recent EPR profile:

      PERIOD ENDING    PROMOTION RECOMMENDATION

             27 April 2001        5
             27 April 2002        5
             27 April 2003        5
             27 April 2004        4(Contested Report)
             27 April 2005        5
             27 April 2006        4
             27 April 2007        5

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPSIDEP recommends denial.  DPSIDEP states the purpose  of  the  appeal
process is to correct errors or  injustices,  not  to  enhance  chances  for
promotion.   After  thoroughly  reviewing  the  applicant's  case,   DPSIDEP
believes his motive is not to correct an injustice, but to have his  earlier
non-selection overturned and his promotion backdated.  He initially  applied
through the Enlisted Reports Appeal Board (ERAB)  prior  to  the  2005  TSgt
promotion release to have his EPR voided based on the lack of  feedback  and
that he believed he deserved an overall  five  versus  a  four  rating.   To
support his claim that the report was not written by  the  designated  rater
he provided, in addition to other documents, a statement from the rater  who
wrote the report, a  statement  from  the  rater  he  believes  should  have
written the report and a statement from the  first  sergeant.   He  did  not
provide a statement from the additional rater or  the  commander,  who  both
would have had the responsibility to ensure the report was  written  by  the
correct rater, was accurate and uninflated  at  the  time  it  was  written.
Additionally, not submitted by the applicant but in a later obtained  e-mail
there is mention of a feedback RIP dated 23 June 2003  that  would  disprove
his claim that this other  rater  began  supervision  in  April  2003.   The
applicant provided an e-mail dated 5 June  2006  that  sufficiently  covered
the information DPSIDEP was looking for.  It not  only  explains  in  detail
the chain of events, it also confirms  and  shows  that  he  was  thoroughly
briefed on the outcome  of  his  EPR,  that  he  was  aware  of  the  ERAB's
correction to his original request, and that each of his concerns  regarding
the contested report were addressed to  him  by  his  rater  and  additional
rater.  AFPC/DPSIDEP contacted the rater to  confirm  the  accuracy  of  the
statement, the rater not only confirmed the  accuracy  of  the  information,
but also  provided  a  statement.   The  rater  in  question  had  been  the
applicant's rater on the previous two EPRs before the contested report.   As
for the statements he provided; none of them  support  voiding  the  report,
nor does anyone in the rating  chain  state  the  report  is  an  inaccurate
assessment of his performance.  Other  than  the  two  raters  stating  they
rated him for a  specified  time  that  supports  his  claim,  there  is  no
evidence to support it.  He provided a statement  from  the  first  sergeant
who stated he believed the supervisor who wrote the report was  not  capable
of performing supervisory duties; however, this statement is in  retrospect,
possibly mellowed with time.  The first sergeant's role in the  EPR  process
is to review all EPR's for quality force issues prior to the  EPR  going  to
the commander for review.  DPSIDEP contends that if the first  sergeant  had
any reservations at the time the report was rendered, he would have  brought
them up at  that  time  as  part  of  his  mandated  responsibilities.   The
additional rater explains in detail why the applicant was rated the  way  he
was; and furthermore explains in exact detail with supporting  documentation
on the issue of the rater.  In fact, based on the evidence provided  by  the
additional rater, DPSIDEP determined that the number  of  day’s  supervision
should  reflect  292  days  versus  366  days  and  DPSIDEP  has  made  this
correction.

DPSIDEP's complete evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit B.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant responded stating he had stellar ratings prior to  the  report
being appealed and any regression should have  been  addressed  during  that
period in order to give him a fair opportunity to progress.  His  additional
rater and commander refused to provide him with supporting  statements.   He
stated the report lacked integrity from the start.   He  was  briefed  about
the outcome of the report after the fact by his additional  rater  in  which
the rater was present but silent.  His first  supervisor  affirms  to  being
his supervisor at the beginning of the rating period until October 2003  and
documents are provided confirming this.  The second  supervisor  affirms  he
was not the supervisor until October 2003.   He  realizes  there  have  been
administrative actions to correct the inaccuracies in his  report;  however,
it does not remove the fact he was unfairly rated and the  report  does  not
reflect his performance.  He has proven no standard was established  and  he
continued  to  perform  at  the  highest  level  to  which  personnel   have
testified.  He also proved that his first supervisor should have  written  a
report and his first supervisor agrees.  Furthermore, his  additional  rater
arrived to the work center in September 2003 and did not assign him  to  the
second supervisor until October 2003  due  to  his  first  supervisor  being
scheduled to deploy in November 2003.

His complete response, with attachments, is at 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 his  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
he has not been the victim of an error or injustice.  We  do  not  find  the
applicant's assertions, in and by  themselves,  sufficiently  persuasive  in
this matter.  We are  not  persuaded  by  the  evidence  provided  that  the
contested report is not a true and accurate assessment  of  his  performance
and demonstrated potential  during  the  specified  time  period,  that  the
comments contained in the report are in error, that the report was  prepared
in a manner  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  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-2007-03646  in  Executive
Session on 6 May 2008, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

                 Ms. Kathleen F. Graham, Panel Chair
            Mr. Vance E. Lineberger, Member
            Mr. Don H. Kendrick, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

 Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 5 October 2007, w/atchs.
 Exhibit B.  Letter AFPC/DPSIDEP, dated 27 February 2008, w/atchs.
 Exhibit C.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 28 March 2008.
 Exhibit D.  Letter, Applicant, dated 7 April 2008, w/atchs.




            KATHLEEN F. GRAHAM
            Panel Chair