RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2008-00549
            INDEX CODE:  111.02
      XXXXXXX    COUNSEL:  NONE
            HEARING DESIRED:  NO

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) rendered for the  period  6 December
2006 through 5 December 2007, be  rated  (5)  versus  the  (4)  rating  he
received.

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He was  not  given  a  midterm  feedback  session  as  required.   To  his
knowledge, there is  no  record  of  a  feedback  session.   His  previous
supervisor provided his last documented feedback on 8 August 2008.   Since
he did not receive feedback from  his  supervisor,  he  thought  his  duty
performance was among the best.  He was assigned temporary duty (TDY)  for
training and was not given the opportunity  to  sign  the  acknowledgement
block on his EPR, which he would have declined to sign based on the rating
and not having a feedback session.  There are no bullets in  Section  III,
Block 2 to justify the rating he received.

In support of his request, the applicant provided a copy  of  his  AF  IMT
910, Enlisted Performance Report (AB thru TSgt).

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

________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Information extracted from the Military Personnel Data System reflects  he
contracted his initial enlistment in the Regular  Air  Force  on  5  April
2005.  He has been progressively promoted to the grade of  senior  airman,
having assumed that grade effective and with a date of  rank  of  5  April
2008.  The following is a resume of his recent EPR profile:

      PERIOD ENDING    PROMOTION RECOMMENDATION

             5 December 2006      5
             5 December 2007      4

________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:


AFPC/DPSIDEP recommends denial.  DPSIDEP states there  may  be  occasions
when feedback was not provided during a reporting period.   The  lack  of
counseling or feedback,  by  itself,  is  insufficient  justification  to
challenge the accuracy or fairness of a report.  In many cases,  although
a  formal  Performance  Feedback  Worksheet  (PFW)  may  not  have   been
accomplished, many verbal and even written counseling’s  may  have  taken
place.  Only members in the rating chain can confirm  if  counseling  was
provided.  Evaluators must confirm they did  not  provide  counseling  or
feedback,  and  it   directly   resulted   in   an   unfair   evaluation.
Unfortunately the applicant provided nothing  from  the  evaluators  even
after the information was requested.  Even then, a  report  will  not  be
voided on lack of feedback alone; instead  the  feedback  date  would  be
removed in Section V and the statement, "Feedback was not accomplished in
IAW AFI 36-2406" would be placed in this section.  Additionally, IAW  AFI
36-2406, Officer And Enlisted Performance  Reports,  it  is  the  ratee’s
responsibility to notify the rater and if necessary, the  rater’s  rater,
when required or requested feedback does not  take  place.   He  did  not
state the attempts he made  to  ensure  the  feedback  was  accomplished.
Since DPSIDEP cannot confirm that  the  feedback  was  not  accomplished,
DPSIDEP considers the report to be accurate  and  points  out,  that  the
latest version of the evaluation forms now requires ratees  to  sign  the
report, unless there is an absence, and  in  this  case,  the  ratee  was
deployed.   Unfortunately,  some  individuals  are  misinterpreting   the
signing of  the  form  as  concurrence,  when  in  fact  it  is  only  an
acknowledgment of the report  and  gives  the  ratee  and  evaluators  an
opportunity to take an administrative look at  the  report  prior  to  it
becoming a matter of record.  Even then, evaluators do not have  to  make
changes if they feel the report is accurate.  While documenting  feedback
sessions is required, they do not replace  informal  day-to-day  feedback
and a rater’s  failure  to  conduct  a  required  or  requested  feedback
session, or document the session on a PFW, will not in itself, invalidate
any subsequent performance reports.  DPSIDEP could correct  the  feedback
information via the Evaluation Reports Appeal Board (ERAB); however,  the
applicant must provide a statement from the rater that the  feedback  was
not accomplished.


The complete DPSIDEP evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit B.

________________________________________________________________

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the  applicant  on  23
May 2008 for review and comment within 30 days.  As  of  this  date,  this
office has received no response (Exhibit C).

________________________________________________________________

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,  or  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-2008-00549 in  Executive
Session on 16 July 2008 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

                 Mr. Jay H. Jordan, Panel Chair
                 Mr. Steven A. Cantrell, Member
                 Mr. Kurt R. LaFrance, Member








The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket  Number  BC-
2008-00549 was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 8 February 2008, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Letter AFPC/DPSIDEP, dated 9 May 2008, w/atchs.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 23 May 2008.




            JAY H. JORDAN
            Panel Chair