RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2012-05944

		COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED:  NO 


________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

Her enlisted performance report (EPR) covering the period 26 Oct 10 through 25 Oct 11 be declared void and removed from her record.  

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

She was unjustly marked down to “above average” in every block on the cited EPR and only received an overall performance assessment of “4.”  She was never provided formal feedback during the reporting period even after she requested it, even though AFI 36-2406, Officer and Enlisted Evaluation Systems,  requires feedback be given within 30-days of a ratee’s request.  In addition, the EPR did not make it into her records for seven months after it closed out.  If she only deserved an overall “4” rating, she would not have been selected for promotion under the Stripes for Exceptional Performance (STEP) program during this same period.   

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

________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant served on active duty in the grade of technical sergeant (E-6/TSgt) during the period of time in question. 

On 13 Apr 12, the applicant received an EPR covering the period of 26 Oct 10 through 25 Oct 11, which reflected an overall performance assessment of “4,” with ratings of “above average” in blocks 1 (primary duties), 2 (standards, conduct, character & military bearing), 4 (training requirements), and 5 (teamwork/ followership) and, a rating of “meets” in block 3 (fitness).  

According to information provided by the applicant, she appealed to the Evaluation Reports Appeals Board (ERAB) to have the same EPR declared void and removed from her record; however, on 22 Oct 12 the ERAB considered her application and was not convinced the EPR was unjust or wrong, and denied her request.

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.  Although the applicant was not given formal feedback during this rating period, she was still rendered daily verbal feedback/counseling on a regular basis, as annotated on the contested EPR.  IAW AFI 36-2406 when required feedback does not take place it is the ratee’s responsibility to notify the rater and, if necessary, the rater’s rater.  The applicant does not appear to have sought remedies from the additional rater of the report.  Furthermore, although the applicant states feedback was not accomplished, the applicant signed the initial EPR acknowledging feedback was completed during the reporting period.  Moreover, a rater’s failure to conduct a required or requested feedback session, or document the session on a Performance Feedback Worksheet (PFW), does not invalidate a performance report.  AFI 36-2406 states “the lack of counseling or feedback, by itself, is not sufficient to challenge the accuracy or validity of an evaluation.”  Concerning the applicant’s contention the EPR in question was late to file, although it appears there was a breakdown in the process between the serving Military Personnel Flight (MPR) and the rating chain in completing the evaluation in a timely manner, an annual report was still properly accomplished.  The applicant also asserts that had her EPR been accomplished on time, she would not have received the STEP promotion she received in Dec 11.  Indeed, the late filing of the report worked to her advantage.  Air Force policy is that an EPR is accurate as written when it becomes a matter of record, and it represents the rating chain’s best judgment at the time the report was rendered.  The applicant has not provided compelling evidence to establish that the EPR in question was unjust or inaccurate.  Her argument is without merit.

A complete copy of the AFPC/DPSID evaluation is at Exhibit C.

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Where the evaluation states she did not contact the rater’s rater, she did contact him verbally and was assured the situation would be taken care of.  Unfortunately, it was not rectified, leaving her wishing she had documented the conversation.  In addition, the evaluation makes reference to her signing the EPR in question.  The initial EPR is not the document which is a matter of record and should not be considered in this situation.  She only provided the initial EPR as a reference to show the blatant discrepancy between feedback sections and personal information.  She signed the initial EPR in distress and anger to remove herself from the situation.  The suggestion presented in the evaluation that she should have obtained statements from her supervisors who wrote the evaluations doesn’t seem to be consistent with having integrity of the process.  She also does not believe the additional rater who signed the EPR should have since the EPR closed out in Oct 11 and the appropriate additional rater served as her commander for an additional three months after close out, yet didn’t sign the document.  Again, it is truly impossible to imagine how a MAJCOM/CC would award a STEP promotion without first consulting with a member’s chain of command, while that same chain of command believed her performance only warranted a “4” rating on her EPR.  One poor supervisor with a personality conflict should not be allowed to discredit her career (Exhibit E).

________________________________________________________________

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.  We took notice of the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of the case, to include her rebuttal response to the advisory opinion; however, we find no evidence of an error or injustice.  Based on the available evidence of record, it appears the EPR in question, although filed in her record months after the reporting period in question, was accomplished in accordance with the appropriate policies and regulatory guidance.  The applicant’s central argument seems to be that she was not provided appropriate feedback.  However, while the contested EPR indicates that she was not provided formal feedback during the reported period, it does indicate that she was provided informal feedback over the course of the reporting period.  While the applicant alleges that she requested formal feedback from her rating chain on two occasions, other than her own assertions, she has provided no documentation for our review that would substantiate this point.  The applicant also argues that the contested rating is inconsistent with her command’s decision to select her for promotion under the Stripes for Exceptional Performers (STEP) program; however, this argument alone is insufficient to establish that the contested EPR did not represent her rating chain’s best judgment of her performance and potential.  In fact, it could be argued that the absence of the contested EPR from her records while she was being considered for promotion under the STEP program worked to her advantage.  We note the applicant’s arguments in response to the advisory opinion indicating that she did raise the issue of the lack of formal feedback with her rater prior to the report being rendered; however, other than her own uncorroborated assertions, she has provided no documentary evidence in support of her arguments on this point.  As for her rebuttal argument that the EPR was not signed by the appropriate additional rater, again, other than her own assertions, she has provided no evidence in support of this argument either.  Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we conclude that no basis exists to grant 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-2012-05944 in Executive Session on 31 Oct 13, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

	Panel Chair
	Member
	Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

	Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 12 Dec 12, w/atchs.
	Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records
	Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPSID, dated 22 Apr 13.
	Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 3 May 13.
	Exhibit E.  Letter, Applicant, undated.




                                   
                                   Panel Chair