RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2009-00137
            INDEX CODE:  111.05
            COUNSEL:  NONE
            HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

The AF IMT 910, Enlisted Performance Report (EPR), rendered for the period
of 5 Jun 05 to 4 Jun 06 be voided and removed from his records.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The contested EPR does not reflect an accurate rating  of  his  performance.
He  did  not  receive  adequate  performance  feedback  sessions  from   his
supervisor prior to his receipt of the contested report.

When he returned from a deployment  in  Iraq,  he  was  assigned  duties  as
supervisor of 12 airmen and was consistently told by his supervisor that  he
was doing a great job.  He requested an initial feedback  and  was  told  he
would receive one at a later date.  He was regularly assured he was doing  a
great job.

He overheard  a  conversation  between  his  supervisor  and  a  new  master
sergeant regarding his EPR  ratings.   When  he  questioned  his  supervisor
about his performance rating, he was told he would receive a five rating.

On 28 Mar 07, he received his first performance feedback.  The  session  was
positive and he was instructed on what he needed to accomplish to receive  a
five rating on his EPR.  He completed all but one  of  the  tasks  within  a
month and  it  was  understood  by  his  supervisor  why  the  one  was  not
completed.

Two weeks before his EPR was to be  finalized,  he  was  informed  he  would
receive a  rating  of  three.   He  was  shocked  and  blind-sided  by  this
information.  He was told that a three rating was a good  report  and  would
not end his career.

He and other members of his flight began to  experience  problems  with  the
aforementioned master sergeant who was later removed  from  her  supervisory
duties and subsequently removed from the flight.  He has included  character
witness statements to corroborate his contentions.

He did not deserve  a  three  rating.   In  addition,  he  was  promoted  to
technical sergeant that  year  which  proves  his  abilities  to  accurately
perform his duties.  His goal is to be  promoted  to  the  grade  of  master
sergeant before he retires from service.

In support of the application, the applicant submits his contested EPR,  his
performance feedback worksheet, and three witness statements.

The applicant's complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Information extracted from  the  Military  Personnel  Data  System  (MilPDS)
indicates  the  applicant  is  currently  assigned  duties  as  the   NCOIC,
Emergency Management Elements flight in the  grade  of  technical  sergeant,
effective and with a date of rank of 1 Aug 06.

The following is a resume of his performance  reports  commencing  with  the
report closing on 28 Aug 93:

Close Out Date   Overall Rating

 28 Aug 93       4
 28 Aug 95       5
  6 Mar 96       5
  6 Mar 97       5
  6 Mar 98       5
 15 Nov 99       5
 15 Nov 00       5
 15 Nov 01       5
 15 Nov 02       5
 15 Nov 03       5
  4 Jun 04       5
  4 Jun 05       5
+ 4 Jun 06       3
  4 Jan 07       4
  5 Dec 07       5

+ Contested report.

The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application, extracted  from
the applicant’s military records, are contained in the  letter  prepared  by
the appropriate office of the Air Force at Exhibits C.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

HQ AFPC/DPSIDEP recommends denial.  DPSIDEP states  the  applicant’s  appeal
through the Evaluation Reports Appeals Board (ERAB) was denied.

A rater’s failure to conduct a required or  requested  feedback  session  or
document  the  session  on  a  performance  Feedback  Worksheet,  will   not
invalidate  any  subsequent  performance  report.    It   is   the   ratee’s
responsibility to notify the rater and if necessary the rater’s  rater  when
a required or requested feedback is not performed.

Only members in the rating chain can confirm if counseling  and/or  feedback
was actually provided.  A direct correlation  between  information  provided
during feedback sessions and the assessment on evaluation reports  does  not
necessarily exist.  For example, if after a  positive  feedback  session  an
evaluator discovers serious problems he or she must record the  problems  in
the evaluation report even when it disagrees  with  the  previous  feedback.
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 which directly  resulted  in
an unfair evaluation.

The applicant did not submit a statement from his rater and the  performance
feedback he submitted coincides with the contested report.

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  6  Mar
09 for review and comment within 30 days.  As of this date, this office  has
received no response (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  error  or  injustice.   After  reviewing  all  the   evidence
provided, we are not persuaded the contested report is erroneous or  unjust.
 In the rating process, each evaluator  is  required  to  assess  a  ratee's
performance, honestly and to the best of their ability.  His assertions  are
duly noted; however, we are  not  convinced  the  report  is  an  inaccurate
depiction  of  his  performance  and  demonstrated  potential   during   the
timeframe indicated.  In addition, we note the feedback  worksheet  provided
by the applicant supports the rating he received.  Thus, we agree  with  the
Air Force office of primary responsibility and adopt its  rationale  as  the
primary basis for our conclusion the applicant has not been  the  victim  of
an error or injustice.   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  AFBCMR  BC-2009-00137  in
Executive Session on 15 July 2009, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

      Mr. Anthony P. Reardon, Panel Chair
      Mr. Dick Anderegg, Member
      Ms. Debra K. Walker, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 30 Dec 08, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPSIDEP, dated 9 Feb 09.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 6 Mar 09.




                                   ANTHONY P. REARDON
                                   Panel Chair