RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-01817
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His Enlisted Performance Report (EPR), rendered for the period
17 Feb 12 through 16 Feb 13, Section IX. Ratees
Acknowledgement, be corrected to reflect No rather than Yes.
________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
The section should have been marked No as he did not receive
all the required feedback.
The applicants complete submission, with attachments, is at
Exhibit A.
________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The applicant is currently serving in the Regular Air Force in
grade of senior airman (E-4).
The contested EPR reflects the applicant was provided feedback
on 12 Dec 12 and was signed by the rater and the reviewer on
27 Mar 13.
On 28 Mar 13, the applicant acknowledged receipt of the
contested EPR and that all required feedback had been
accomplished during the reporting period.
The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are
described in the letter prepared by the Air Force office of
primary responsibility, which is attached at Exhibit C.
________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
AFPC/DPSID recommends denial indicating there is no evidence of
an error or an injustice. The applicant has not provided any
evidence showing he did not receive the required feedback during
the rating period. Furthermore, there was no evidence provided
to show that the report was unjust or inaccurate as written.
The applicant did not file an appeal through the Evaluation
Report Appeals Board (ERAB). Under the provisions of AFI 36-
2406, Officer and Enlisted Evaluation Systems, a report is not
erroneous or unfair because the applicant believes it
contributed to the lack of counseling or feedback. While Air
Force policy requires performance feedback for personnel, a
direct correlation between information provided during the
feedback session and the assessments on an evaluation report
does not necessarily have to exist. For example, if after a
positive feedback session, an evaluator discovers serious
problems, the evaluator must record the problem in the
evaluation report even when it disagrees with the previous
feedback. Additionally, a formal feedback does not negate any
day-to-day interaction that may include any type of formal
feedback/counseling, whether verbal or in writing. Furthermore,
the lack of counseling or feedback, by itself, is not sufficient
justification to challenge the accuracy or justness of a report.
Evaluators must confirm that they did not provide counseling or
feedback, and that this directly resulted in an unfair
evaluation. Raters are required to conduct a feedback session
with the ratee after all evaluators have signed the evaluation.
The evaluation was completed within the regulatory Air Force
requirements. Although the applicant may feel that this was an
injustice, he did not provide sufficient evidence to prove that
the evaluator was in direct violation of the AFI. An evaluation
report is considered to represent the rating chain's best
judgment at the time it is rendered. Air Force policy is that
once a report is accepted for file, only strong evidence to the
contrary warrants correction or removal from an individual's
record. The burden of proof is on the applicant. The applicant
has not substantiated that the contested report was not rendered
in good faith by all evaluators based on knowledge available at
the time.
A complete copy of the AFPC/DPSID 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 12 May 14 for review and comment within 30 days
(Exhibit C). As of this date, no response has been received by
this office.
________________________________________________________________
THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:
1. The applicant has not 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. In this
respect, we note this Board is the highest administrative level
of appeal within the Air Force. As such, an applicant must
first exhaust all available avenues of administrative relief
provided by existing law or regulations prior to seeking relief
before this Board, as required by the governing Air Force
Instruction. In this respect, we note the Air Force office of
primary responsibility has reviewed this application and
indicated there is an available avenue of administrative relief
the applicant has not first pursued, the Evaluation Reports
Appeal Board (ERAB). In view of this, we find this application
is not ripe for adjudication at this level as there exists a
subordinate level of appeal that has not first been depleted.
Therefore, in view of the above, we find no compelling basis to
recommend granting the relief sought in this application.
________________________________________________________________
THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:
The applicant be notified the evidence presented did not
demonstrate the existence of material error or injustice; the
application was denied without a personal appearance; and 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 Docket
Number BC-2013-01817 in Executive Session on 10 Jun 14, under
the provisions of AFI 36-2603:
, Panel Chair
, Member
, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149s, dated 10 Apr 13 and 24 Apr 13,
w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records
Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPSID, dated 11 Apr 14.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 12 May 14.
Panel Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-00827
In support of his request, the applicant provides copies of his EPRs for periods ending 4 Apr 08 and 13 Jan 09, his appeal to the Evaluation Report Appeals Board (ERAB) and, a memorandum from his rater dated 6 May 08. Moreover, while Air Force policy requires formal feedback be documented, a direct correlation between information provided during the feedback session and the assessments on an evaluation report does not necessarily exist. The complete AFPC/DPSOE evaluation is at Exhibit...
AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-02557
_________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: His rater did not provide him with a mid-term feedback and there is evidence to support that a personality conflict existed between him and his rater. He asked for feedback and notified his chain-of-command that he was not provided feedback. In the absence of any evidence of unfair treatment or injustice, DPSID finds that the ratings were given fairly and IAW all Air Force policies and procedures.
AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 02192
A raters failure to conduct a required or requested feedback session, or document the session on a PFW, will not, of itself, invalidate any subsequent performance report or (for officers) PRF. Furthermore, IAW AFI 36-2401, paragraph Al.5.8, it states that Only members in the rating chain can confirm if counseling was provided. While current Air Force policy requires performance feedback for personnel, a direct correlation between information provided during feedback sessions and the...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC-2013-01902
b. AFPC/DPSIDs advisory opinion states The applicant believes that after subtraction of his TDY to the NCO Academy and the time he was loaned out to another section, the rater on the contested evaluation did not obtain the minimum required supervision of 120 days. In his original application, there is substantial evidence that shows the Chief did not have enough days of supervision to close out a report on him. The Chief sent an email to him on 21 Sep 09 stating he was assigned as his...
AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-04746
The first time the contested report was used in the promotion process was cycle 11E6. The complete AFPC/DPSID evaluation is at Exhibit D. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: On 23 Mar 2012, copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant for review and comment within 30 days. ________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: The pertinent military records...
AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-01820
The applicant filed an appeal through the Evaluation Report Appeals Board (ERAB) under the provisions of AFI 36-2401, Correcting Officer and Enlisted Evaluation Reports, however, the ERAB was not convinced the contested report was inaccurate or unjust and disapproved the applicants request. The complete DPSOE evaluation is at Exhibit D. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Copies of the Air Force evaluations were...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 00951
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-00951 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His enlisted performance report (EPR) covering the period 8 Oct 07 through 7 Oct 08 be declared void and removed from his record. He was not provided any midterm feedback during the evaluation period, but his rater put 15 Feb 08 in Block V as the date...
AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 00308
The ERAB denied his request indicating he did not provide sufficient evidence to support his allegations for removal of the contested report. While current Air Force policy requires performance feedback for personnel, a direct correlation between information provided during feedback sessions and the assessments on evaluation reports does not necessarily exist. Therefore, while the applicant would argue that it would be appropriate to declare the report void and remove it from his records,...
AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-02734
The action was not a change of rater, but removal of rater and the feedback date as recorded was valid for use in the contested EPR. The ERAB administratively corrected the EPR by adding the rater was removed from the rating chain effective 18 November 2010. The applicant states the number of supervision days as reflected (365) is inaccurate as his new rater did not assume rating duties until 18 November 2010. He does not provide any supporting evidence to support that any unreliable...
AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-03471
In regard to the applicants claim that her rater did not provide her proper feedback, while current Air Force policy requires performance feedback for personnel, a direct correlation between information provided during feedback sessions and the assessments on evaluation reports does not necessarily exist. While other individuals outside the rating chain are entitled to their opinions of the applicants duty performance and the events occurring around the time the contested EPR was...