RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2008-02194
            INDEX CODE:  111.02
      XXXXXXX    COUNSEL:  NONE
            HEARING DESIRED:  NO

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

Her Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) rendered for the period of 11 January
2007 through 10 January 2008 be voided.

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

She received an initial feedback and was never given verbal feedback  until
her EPR rating was questioned.  Her supervisor stated she was not ready  to
be a master sergeant and  rated  her  performance  a  “4”.   She  does  not
understand this considering she had just returned from the  Noncommissioned
Officer Academy on 4 April 2008.

In support of her request, the applicant  provided  a  statement  from  her
current supervisor, copies of AF Forms 910, Enlisted Performance Report (AB-
TSGT), AF IMT 931, Performance Feedback Worksheet (AB thru TSGT).

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

________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 18 November 1992 and was
progressively promoted to the grade of technical  sergeant  having  assumed
that grade effective and with a date of rank of 1 September 2006.

The following is a resume of the applicant’s recent EPR profile:

         PERIOD ENDING          OVERALL EVALUATION

      10 January 2008                 4B(Contested Report)
      10 January 2007                 5B
      10 January 2006                 5B
      10 January 2005                 5B
      10 January 2004                 5B




EPR PROFILE CONTINUED:


      10 January 2003                 5B
      10 January 2002                 5B

________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPSIDEP recommends denial.  DPSIDEP states Air  Force  policy  requires
an initial feedback within 60  days  of  starting  supervision  and  midterm
feedback approximately at the halfway point  between  the  initial  feedback
and closeout date of the report.  However, when required feedback  does  not
take  place,  AFI  36-2406,  Correcting  Officer  and  Enlisted   Evaluation
Reports, states it is the ratee’s responsibility to notify their rater,  and
if necessary the rater’s rater, when required or requested feedback did  not
take place.  A formal feedback does not negate any day  to  day  interaction
that may include any type of informal  feedback/counseling,  whether  verbal
or in writing.

There may be occasions when  feedback  was  not  provided  during  a  report
period; the lack of counseling or feedback, by  itself,  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.   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.   The
rater also explains that he and the additional  rater  had  both  originally
agreed on the overall  rating,  however,  when  the  commander  engaged  the
overall  rating  came  into  question.   AFI  36–2406  states  it   is   the
commander’s responsibility to ensure evaluation reports accurately  describe
performance and make realistic recommendations for advancement.

There  are  procedures  for  disagreements;  first  discussion  and  if   no
agreement is reached, then nonconcurrence.  In this case,  it  appears  that
both procedures were used, and performed correctly.   The  additional  rater
agreed via discussion and the rater refused to change his rating;  resulting
in the additional rater nonconcurring.  Unfortunately, she did  not  provide
a statement from the additional rater explaining his position; however,  the
additional rater states clearly in the  EPR  that  she  is  a  strong  above
average performer and will be truly among the best with proper guidance  and
mentorship.


The complete DPSIDEP evaluation is at Exhibit B.

________________________________________________________________

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.   As  of  this  date,  no  response  has  been
received by this office (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  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.   We  do  not  find  her  assertions,  in  and  by  themselves,
sufficiently  persuasive  in  this  matter.   Additionally,  we  are   not
persuaded by the evidence provided that the contested report is not a true
and accurate assessment of  her  performance  and  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.

________________________________________________________________

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-2008-02194  in  Executive
Session on 28 August 2008 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:
                 Mr.  Wallace F. Beard JR., Panel Chair
                 Ms.  Dee R. Reardon, Member
                 Ms.  Karen A. Holloman, Member

The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket Number  BC-
2008-02194 was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 20 May 2008, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Letter AFPC/DPSIDEP, dated 10 July 2008.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 25 July 2008.




            WALLACE F. BEARD JR.
            Panel Chair