. 

DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE 

WASHINGTON, DC 

Office of the Assistant Secretary 

AFBCMR 96-02026 

MEMORANDUM FOR THE CHIEF OF STAFF 

Having received and considered the recommendation of the Air Force 
Board  for  Correction  of  Military  Records  and  under  the  authority  of 
Section 1552, Title 10, United States Code (70A Stat 116), it is directed that: 
t  of  the Air  Force 
corrected  to  show 
rendered  for  the 
period  19 July 1991 through 29 February 1992, be, and hereby is, declared 
void and removed from his records. 

It is further directed that he be provided supplemental consideration 
for  promotion  to the grade of  master  sergeant for  all appropriate cycles 
beginning with cycle 95E7. 

If  AFPC  discovers  any  adverse  factors  during  or  subsequent  to 
supplemental consideration that are separate and apart, and unrelated to 
the  issues  involved  in  this  application  that  would  have  rendered  the 
applicant 
the  promotion,  such  information  will  be 
documented and presented  to the Board  for a final determination on the 
individual’s qualification for the promotion. 

ineligible  for 

If  supplemental promotion  consideration results in the selection for 
promotion  to  the  higher  grade,  immediately  after  such  promotion  the 
records  shall  be  corrected  to  show  that  applicant  was  promoted  to the 
higher  grade  on  the  date  of  rank  established  by  the  supplemental 
promotion  and  that  applicant  is  entitled  to  all  pay,  allowances,  and 
benefits of such grade as of that date. 

I/Director 
Air Force Review Boards Agency 

. 

AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

IN THE MATTER OF: 

DOCKET "IBER:  96-02026 

COUNSEL:  NONE 

HEARING DESIRED:  NO 

NOV 

4 a@- 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

The  Enlisted  Performance  Report,  for  the  period  19  July  1991 
through 29 February 1992, be declared void  and removed from his 
records. 

The record contains ratings and comments in Sections 111, IV, V 
and  VI  which  untruthfully  and  unjustly  document  his  duty 
performance for the contested period. 

In support of the applicant's appeal, he submits a statement from 
the rater and commander of the EPR in question. 

Applicant's submission is attached at Exhibit A. 

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 

Applicant  is currently serving in the Regular Air  Force  in the 
grade of technical sergeant  (E-6). 
Applicant submitted a similar appeal under AFR 31-11 (now AFI 3 6 -  
2401) which  was  denied  by  the  Airman  Personnel  Records  Review 
Board  (APRRB) on 4 April 1994. 
Applicant's EPR profile 

is as follows: 

PERIOD ENDING 

OVERALL EVALUATION 

18 Jul 90 
18 Jul 91 
*  29 Feb 92 
25 Dec 92 
25 Dec 9 3  
3  Jun 94 
3 Jun 95 

3  Jun 96 
3 Jun 97 

*  Contested report 

AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

5 
5 

The Chief, Inquiries/AFBCMR Section, Airman Promotion Branch, HQ 
AFPC/DPPPWB, states that the first time the contested report was 
considered  in  the  promotion  process  was  cycle  9537 to  master 
Should  the  Board  void  the  contested  report,  the 
sergeant. 
applicant  will 
entitled  to  supplemental  promotion 
consideration beginning with cycle 9537.  He would not become a 
selectee for this cycle, but would become a selectee for the 9637 
cycle  pending  a  favorable  data  verification  review  and 
recommendation of the commander. 

be 

A copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit B. 

The Chief, BCMR and SSB Section, HQ AFPC/DPPPAB, states that the 
letter from the rater contains comments claiming he was coerced 
by the indorser when he wrote the contested EPR. 
He states the 
indorser used the threat of retribution to convince him to change 
words in the narrative of the report and ratings on the front of 
the report.  The reviewing commander states he  is now aware of 
the conflict that existed between the rater and the indorser, and 
this awareness warrants approval of the applicant's request.  He 
does  fail  to  address  any  specific  information  that  might  lend 
credence to the claim of coercion. 

Air  Force  policy  is  that  an  evaluation  report  is  accurate  as 
written when it becomes a matter of record.  It takes substantial 
evidence to the contrary to have a report changed or voided.  To 
effectively challenge an EPR, it  is important to hear  from all 
the  evaluators  from  the  report--not  only  for  support, but  for 
clarification/explanation.  The  applicant  has  not  provided  any 
information from  the  indorser on  the  report.  While  the  rater 
supports the applicant's appeal, they have no reason to believe 
it reasonable that he should be able to override the opinions and 
assessments  of  the  indorser, who  concurred  with  the  report  as 
originally  written.  They  have  been  provided  no  evidence  the 
indorser was using any type coercion.  In cases such as this, it 
would  be  appropriate  for  the  applicant  or  rater  to  go  to  the 
Inspector  General  (IG) and  include  the  IG's  findings  in  the 
appeal  package. 
The  applicant  has  neither  proven,  nor 
specifically addressed, any error on the contested report.  The 
report appears to have been accomplished and processed in direct 
accordance with Air  Force policy  in effect  at  the  time  it  was 
rendered. 

Regarding the applicant's statement on the front of  the DD Form 
149 related to his proximity to promotion, they would point  out 

2 

that the effect an evaluation report has on a ratee's promotion 
potential  is  irrelevant  when  considering  the  validity  of  the 
report.  The applicant  also states that  this appeal could also 
remedy a  more  recent  llripplell created by  the  contested report. 
As they have no way of knowing whether the applicant is referring 
to promotion nonselection or the Article  15 he  received in July 
1993, they  have  no  way  to  assess  this  statement.  While  the 
charges  made  by  the  rater and  the  reviewing commander in  this 
appeal are quite serious, the issue was not addressed through the 
appropriate Air Force channels as would be the response to such a 
situation by any reasonably responsible Air Force member.  They 
recommend the applicant's request be denied. 
A copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit C. 

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

Applicant's states, in summary, that the rater's signed letter is 
proof of injustice in this case.  His letter, unlike the original 
EPR, was signed without a threat of coercion and must, therefore, 
be  considered more  truthful.  The  reviewing commander's signed 
letter  also  proves  injustice.  He  testifies  that  his  original 
concurrence  with  the  EPR  was  made  with  false  belief  that  the 
rater and  indorser had  concurring opinions of  his  (applicant I  s )  
performance.  While  the  advisory  opinion cites  a  need  to  hear 
from all  the  evaluators from  the  report, an attempt to contact 
the  indorser  in  1994  (after his  retirement)  resulted  in  no 
response. 

The  Air  Force  evaluation  states  that  "In cases  like  this,  it 
would be appropriate for the applicant or rater to go to the IG 
and include the IG' s findings in the appeals package. I1  However, 
the  Air  Force  Instruction  (AFI),  Attachment  14,  llInspector 
General ComplaintsI1 explains that the IG Complaints Program does 
not generally handle matters that are covered under other AFIs or 
directives.  That attachment also lists "Appeal of an EPR"  as a 
type of complaint covered under other AFIs. 

The Enlisted Evaluation System has two stated objectives.  First, 
it provides airmen with honest, periodic performance feedback so 
they will know what  the Air Force and their supervisors expect. 
Second, it provides an official record of performance as viewed 
by  officials in the rating chain who  are  closest to  the  actual 
work  environment.  The contested report fails to fulfill either 
of these objectives and should be voided. 

A copy of the applicant's response, with attachments, is attached 
at Exhibit E. 

3 

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT: 

The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by existing 

1. 
law or regulations. 
2 .   The application was timely filed. 
3.  Sufficient  relevant  evidence  has  been  presented  to 
demonstrate the existence of probable error or injustice.  After 
reviewing the documentation submitted with  this application, we 
believe there is some doubt as to whether the contested report is 
an  accurate  assessment  of  applicant's performance  during  the 
period  in  question.  This  doubt  is  supported  by  a  statement 
submitted by  the  rater who  indicates  that  he  was  under duress 
from the indorser and was made to change markings and, change or 
delete  certain  words  on  the  contested  report  or  expect 
retribution.  It appears that applicant's commander, who signed 
the EPR  in question, was not  aware of  the disagreement between 
the  rater  and  indorser.  As  he  indicates  in  his  statement  in 
support of the applicant, had he been aware that the indorser had 
put  undue  pressure  on the  rater, he  would  have  intervened and 
counseled  the  indorser  that  if  he  had  a  disagreement with  the 
rater, he  should have non-concurred and not  forced the rater to 
give a rating he felt unjustified.  In view of the foregoing and 
in  an  effort  to  offset  any  possibility  of  an  injustice,  we 
recommend the EPR  in question be declared void and removed from 
the  applicant's  records. 
In  addition,  applicant  should  be 
considered for promotion to the grade of master sergeant (E-7) by 
all appropriate cycles in which the contested report was a matter 
of record. 

THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: 
The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force 
relating  to  APPLICANT, be  corrected  to  show  that  the  Enlisted 
Performance Report, AF Form 910, rendered for the period 19 July 
1991 through 29 February 1992, be declared void and removed from 
his records. 

It  is  further  recommended  that  he  be  provided  supplemental 
consideration for promotion to the grade of master sergeant for 
all appropriate cycles beginning with cycle 9537. 

If  AFPC  discovers any  adverse  factors  during  or  subsequent  to 
supplemental  consideration  that  are  separate  and  apart,  and 
unrelated to the  issues involved in this application that would 
have  rendered the  applicant  ineligible  for  the promotion, such 
information will  be  documented and presented to the Board  f o r   a 
final  determination  on  the  individual's qualification  f o r   the 
promotion. 

4 

If supplemental promotion consideration results in the selection 
for  promotion  to  the  higher  grade,  immediately  after  such 
promotion the records shall be  corrected to show that applicant 
was promoted to the higher grade on the date of rank established 
by  the supplemental promotion and that applicant is entitled to 
all pay, allowances, and benefits of such grade as of that date. 

The following members of the Board considered this application in 
Executive Session on 2 6   August  1 9 9 7 ,   under the provisions of AFI 
3 6 - 2 6 0 3  : 

Mr. Robert D. Stuart, Panel Chairman 
Ms. Dorothy P. Loeb, Member 
Mr. Gary Appleton, Member 

All  members  voted  to correct  the  records, as recommended.  The 
following documentary evidence was considered: 

Exhibit A. 
Exhibit B.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPPWB, dated 2 5   Jul 96. 
Exhibit C. 
Exhibit D. 
Exhibit E. 

DD Form 149, dated 4 Jul 9 6 ,   w/atchs. 
Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPAB, dated 13 Aug 96, w/atch. 
Letter, AFBCMR, dated 2 6   Aug 9 6 .  
Applicantis Letter, dated 6  Sep 9 6 ,   w/atchs. 

ROBERT D. STUART 
Panel Chairman 

5