RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2010-00686
            INDEX CODE:  111.05
            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His AF  Form  911,  Enlisted  Performance  Report  (EPR)  MSgt  thru  CMSgt)
rendered for the period of 16 Sep 08 thru 15 Sep 09  be  declared  void  and
removed from his records.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The rating on the contested report included personal issues  which  occurred
outside the rating period.  He appealed the report through his rating  chain
and his supervisor agreed and signed a new  EPR  but  his  additional  rater
refused.  His appeal was denied by  the  Evaluation  Reports  Appeals  Board
(ERAB).

The report close out date was 15 Sep 09; however, he did not receive it  for
signature until November which allowed some information to be included  from
outside of the rating period.  One of the contested events involved a  rumor
that he did not wear double  hearing  protection  around  running  aircraft;
however, he informed his chief that the accusation was  false  and  provided
statements from eyewitnesses.  His chief never passed the information on  to
his squadron supervisor and he did not have to see his group  commander  for
the alleged violation.  He was never  offered  or  received  any  additional
training, but was removed from his position for a short time.

He was not  provided  feedback  or  informed  he  needed  improvement.   His
supervisor informed him he would write a “5” EPR on him.  On 30 Nov  09,  he
was forced out of his section and moved to a job  he  held  earlier  in  his
career which he felt was a regression.

In support of his request, the applicant submits copies  of  email  messages
and several of his EPRs.

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 a Section  chief  in
the grade of master sergeant having assumed that grade effective and with  a
date of rank of 1 Jul 05.

The following is a resume of his Enlisted Performance Reports  (EPRs)  as  a
MSgt:

Close-Out Date   Overall Rating


  10 Nov 05      5
  15 Sep 06      5
  15 Sep 07      5
  15 Sep 08      5
+ 15 Sep 09      4
  15 Jul 10      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 Exhibit B.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

HQ AFPC/DPSIDEP recommends denial.  DPSIDEP states the  applicant’s  request
for relief was denied by the Evaluation Reports Appeals Board (ERAB).

DPSIDEP opines the applicant was  given  a  fair  and  accurate  explanation
regarding his EPR rating.  In accordance with Air  Force  Policy,  paperwork
and/or counseling is not required to justify an  “Above  Average”  versus  a
“Truly Among the Best” rating.

DPSIDEP states the  applicant’s  comments  are  not  substantiated  and  are
without evidence.

The complete DPSIDEP evaluation is at Exhibit B.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant reiterates many of his earlier contentions and disagrees  with
the comments provided by the Air Force  office  of  primary  responsibility.
He states the evidence clearly shows which  comments  were  outside  of  the
rating chain.  He admits to a few rookie  productions  supervisor  mistakes;
however, this was his first time performing  in  this  position.   He  could
live with the markdowns on his EPR; however, he never  received  an  initial
or midterm feedback session during the EPR rating  period  until  after  his
EPR was completed and forwarded to  him  for  signature.   If  he  had  been
properly  trained  in  the  productions  supervisor  position  and  received
feedback, his EPR would have been rated differently.  His  additional  rater
did not adhere to professional matters.

The applicant’s complete submission 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  error  or  injustice.   After  reviewing  all  the   evidence
provided, we are not persuaded that 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.   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.  Therefore, we agree with the Air Force  office  of
primary responsibility and adopt  their  rationale  as  the  basis  for  our
conclusion that the applicant has  not  been  the  victim  of  an  error  or
injustice.  In the absence of persuasive evidence to the contrary,  we  find
no 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-2010-00686  in
Executive Session on 9 Nov 10, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

      , Panel Chair
      , Member
      , Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 9 Feb 10, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPSIDEP,dated 9 Apr 10.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 30 Apr 10.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, Applicant, dated 20 May 10.



                                   Panel Chair