RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2008-02015
INDEX CODE: 112.00
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
The Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) rendered for the period ending 31 Mar
08 be changed from a "3" to reflect an overall rating of “5.”
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
The report in question was unjust because she was never provided feedback
or counseling. She received feedback one week prior to close-out and the
performance report does not accurately reflect her work ethics or
character.
In support of her application, she provided copies of documents extracted
from her military personnel records.
Her complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The applicant is currently serving on active duty in the grade of senior
airman.
She did not file an appeal through the Evaluation Reports Appeals Board
(ERAB). Her case was forwarded to the ERAB and the ERAB was not persuaded
her report was inaccurate or unjust.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
AFPC/DPSIDEP recommends denial. DPSIDEP states Air Force policy requires
an initial feedback within 60 days of starting supervision and a midterm
approximately at the halfway point between the initial feedback and the
close-out date of the report. Her rater was not assigned to her until
October 2007 and her initial feedback would have been required no later
than December 2007, her midterm feedback would be due in February 2008 and
her EPR closed out on 31 Mar 08. The governing Air Force instruction
states it is the ratee's responsibility to notify the rater and if
necessary, the rater's rater, when a required or requested feedback did not
take place. She requested feedback on 17 Mar 08 (two weeks before the
close out date of her EPR) and received feedback on 24 Mar 08. The
instruction further states only members in the rating chain can confirm if
formal or informal counseling or feedback was actually provided verbally or
in writing.
Air Force policy requires formal feedback to be documented on the Air Force
Form 931, Performance Feedback Worksheet (PFW) and a direct correlation
between information provided during the feedback session, and the
assessments on evaluation reports does not necessarily exist. Furthermore,
formal feedback does not negate any day-to-day interaction that may include
any type of informal feedback or counseling, whether verbal or in writing.
Additionally, the lack of counseling or feedback is not sufficient
justification 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. 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.
DPSIDEP disagrees with the applicant regarding her contention that the
report in question does not reflect her work ethics or character. The
report says a lot about her work ethics and character. It shows that
during the reporting period she was under close supervision and she was an
average airman meeting the minimum required standards.
The applicant believes she should have received an overall “5” rating. The
ratings are at the discretion of the evaluators. It appears from the
evidence provided that the report is right and on target.
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 to the applicant on 18 Jul
08, for review and response 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 an error or an injustice. The applicant's contentions are
duly noted; however, we do not find her assertions, in and by themselves,
sufficiently persuasive to override the rationale provided by the Air Force
office of primary responsibility. Evidence has not been presented which
would lead us to believe that the contested report is not a true and
accurate assessment of her performance during the specified time period,
that the report was erroneously prepared, or that the assigned rating was
in error or contrary to the provisions of the governing instruction.
Therefore we adopt the rationale expressed by the Air Force office of
primary responsibility as basis for our conclusion that she has not been
the victim of an error or injustice. In the absence of evidence to the
contrary, we find no compelling basis to recommend granting the relief
sought in this application.
_________________________________________________________________
The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2008-
02015 in Executive Session on 24 Sep 08, under the provisions of AFI 36-
2603:
Mr. Charlene M. Bradley, Panel Chair
Mr. Kurt R. LaFrance, Member
Ms. Debra K. Walker, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 7 May 08, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Available Military Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPSIDEP, dated 30 Jun 08.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 18 Jul 08.
CHARLENE M. BRADLEY
Panel Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2009 | BC-2008-02713
The complete DPSIDEP evaluation, with attachment, is at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 3 October 2008 for review and comment within 30 days. As of this date, this office has received no response. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified that the evidence...
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 | CY2008 | BC-2007-03340
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. 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 complete DPSIDEP...
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-2010-00686
DPSIDEP states the applicant’s request for relief was denied by the Evaluation Reports Appeals Board (ERAB). The complete DPSIDEP evaluation is at Exhibit B. The applicant asserts that his supervisor included comments in his EPR that occurred outside of the rating period and that he was not provided initial or midterm feedback; however, he has not provided evidence which substantiates his claim.
AF | BCMR | CY2009 | BC-2008-02144
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 25 July 2008 for review and comment within 30 days. In this case, the rater provided a mid-term feedback; and although it was given to the ratee three months prior to the closeout date of the contested report, we agree with the determination of AFPC/DPSIDEP that...
AF | BCMR | CY2009 | BC-2008-02194
Unfortunately, in this case, she did receive an initial feedback, and as explained in the rater’s statement the midterm feedback was not accomplished due to her deployment; however the rater states he did provide verbal feedback. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to applicant on 25 July 2008 for review and response. ...
A personal conflict existed between the rater and herself which with the supporting evidence provided will show that the rating given was unjust. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Chief, BCMR and SSB Section, AFPC/DPPPAB, reviewed this application and states that the applicant provided statements from the indorser and the reviewing commander who states that he admits if he had known the applicant was unaware she was getting a “4” on...
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 | CY2010 | BC-2010-00762
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2010-00762 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES ________________________________________________________________ THE APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) rendered for the period from 8 February 2008 through 1 October 2008 be changed to reflect the correct inclusive dates, remove duplicate bullet statements, and reflect the correct dates of supervision. She...