RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2007-03849
            INDEX CODE:  111.02
      XXXXXXX    COUNSEL:  NONE
            HEARING DESIRED:  NO

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) rendered for the period 20 September
2006 through 19 September 2007, be removed from his records.

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The EPR in question is unjustified.  The rater/supervisor never  conducted
an initial or mid-term feedback to justify the markdowns indicated on  the
EPR.  He was not provided informal or formal feedback indicating  his  EPR
was in jeopardy and that his performance was lacking.  This did not  allow
him an opportunity to improve his performance.  He was told the  contested
EPR was influenced by a lieutenant colonel at Vandenberg, Air  Force  Base
because he had not completed his Community College of the Air Force (CCAF)
degree and was not enrolled in Course 12, Senior  Noncommissioned  Officer
Academy (SNCOA).  He does not believe this  is  justification  considering
there was no feedback.

In support of his request, the applicant submits a copy of  the  contested
report.

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

________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant contracted his initial enlistment in the Regular Air Force on 13
March 1990.  He has been progressively promoted to  the  grade  of  master
sergeant, having assumed that grade effective and with a date of rank of 1
January 2006.

The following is a resume of his recent EPR profile:

      PERIOD ENDING    PROMOTION RECOMMENDATION

            19 September 2007           4 Contested Report)
            19 September 2006           5
            19 September 2005           5
             9 November 2004      5
             9 November 2003      5

________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPSIDEP recommends denial.  DPSIDEP states the applicant did file  an
appeal through the  Evaluation  Reports  Appeal  Board  (ERAB)  under  the
provisions of AFI 36-2401, Correcting  Officers  and  Enlisted  Evaluation
Reports.  However, it was denied because the ERAB was  not  convinced  the
report was in error or unjust.  HQ USAF/A1P message  091540Z  August  2006
announced master sergeant reports closing out on or after 1  October  2007
require CCAF and SNCOA completion for  senior  rater  endorsement.   While
this report closed out prior to 1 October 2007, many senior raters in  the
Air Force had already been using this criteria for years  as  an  informal
criteria to determine who will or will not receive their  endorsement  and
the message only made it official.  Therefore, it is very likely that  the
report was influenced in part, not by the lieutenant colonel, but  by  Air
Force  policy.   Unfortunately  however,  it  does  not  make  the  report
inaccurate or unjust.  The senior rater ultimately has the  responsibility
to decide who will get his endorsement and it is evident that he felt  the
applicant was undeserving of the  top  markings  in  the  applicant’s  own
failure to accomplish  the  minimal  highly  recommended  (now  mandatory)
requirements of a senior noncommissioned officer.

The complete DPSIDEP evaluation is at Exhibit B.

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant responded stating he is  not  contesting  the  senior  rater
endorsement.  He worked at  a  detachment  and  mentioned  the  lieutenant
colonel because he was  the  squadron  proper  commander.   It  seems  the
decision to downgrade his report was being  led  by  the  squadron  proper
commander and not the detachment commander.  However, this is  speculation
based on  verbal  comments  received  from  his  direct  supervisor.   His
original supervisor provided the initial feedback and  nothing  derogatory
was mentioned, only expectations of the job and typical  initial  feedback
protocol.  All indications from the original supervisor indicated all  was
well.  Within a  couple  of  weeks  of  being  placed  under  his  current
supervisor, his annual report became due.  He was told by the director  of
operations that he would be taking over the writing of his EPR  since  his
current supervisor did not have enough time to write an  accurate  report.
Afterwards, the report was assigned to another captain who did not work in
his section.  Approximately three to four weeks later the new director  of
operations requested he provide  bullets  because  he  was  preparing  the
report.  The director of operations then assigned the task to his  current
supervisor.  He provided a slew of bullets and included the  fact  he  was
working on his CCAF degree  and  had  completed  credit  hours  doing  the
reporting period.  When he was assigned to the detachment he indicated  he
wanted to complete his CCAF degree  and  then  start  on  Course  12.   No
derogatory statements were made or indications given that his  goals  were
bad or the priority of his goal was flawed.  At no  time  was  he  led  to
believe that his performance was sub-par.  In fact he received  airman  of
the quarter for the quarter prior to the  report  closeout  date  and  the
quarter after the closeout date.  He believes there is  an  obligation  on
the part of the command to state “no senior NCO’s report will be  afforded
a five unless you have completed your Course 12  and  CCAF  degree.”   Not
once did anyone mention this “in-house policy.”  The fact is,  the  system
failed and he was not given a fair chance to correct perceived  shortfalls
or to relay that there was no shortfall.  He received an apology from  the
commander for the lack of communication in regards  to  the  surprise  “4”
report.  Obviously it is too late because the report is  a  matter  record
and the Board is his only hope to correct this injustice.

The applicant's complete response 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  the
applicant's complete  submission  in  judging  the  merits  of  the  case;
however, we agree with the opinions and recommendations 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  do  not  find  his  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 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.

________________________________________________________________




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-2007-03849
in Executive Session on 13 February 2008, under the provisions  of  AFI  36-
2603:

                 Mr. James W. Russell III, Panel Chair
                 Mr. James L. Sommer, Member
                 Ms. Barbara J. Barger, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 20 November 2007, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Letter AFPC/DPSIDEP, dated 11 December 2007.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 11 January 2008.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, Applicant, dated 16 January 2008.





            JAMES W. RUSSELL III
            Panel Chair