. 

DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR  FORCE 

WASHINGTON  DC 

OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY 

MAY  2  3  1995 

MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, AIR FORCE BOARD 
FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

SUBJECT:  AFBCMR Application of 

Subject applicant requested the Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) 
closing 9 October 1990 be declared void and removed from his records on 
the basis that the rater used it as a vehicle for punishment.  The majority 
of the panel concluded that the contested report was not invalidated by a 
possible personality conflict between the rater and applicant, nor was it 
used as a means of retribution.  However, after thoroughly reviewing all 
the documentation pertaining to this appeal, I agree with the minority 
member of the panel that relief is warranted. 

In this respect,  I note the commander provides a strong  supporting 
statement indicating a severe personality clash did exist between the rater 
and the applicant.  The evidence demonstrates the rater's vindictiveness 
was such that senior officers felt compelled to become involved in an 
effort to salvage the applicant's career.  Furthermore, the contested EPR 
is totally inconsistent with the applicant's prior and subsequent 
performance.  Specifically, the report closing 28 January 1990, written by 
the same rater and prior to the applicant's IG complaint against the rater, 
indicates that his performance was superlative. 

Given these circumstances, I believe the applicant should be given 

the benefit of the doubt.  Therefore, I direct that the report closing 
9 October 1990 be declared void and applicant be provided supplemental 
promotion consideration to the grade of senior master sergeant for all 

appropriate cycles beginning with cycle 93S8. &&  .LINEB  GER 
1 Air Force Review Boards 

Deputy for 

DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR  FORCE 

WASHINGTON  DC 

OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY 

AFBCMR 94-02647 

MAY  2  3  1995 

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: 

removed from his records. 

partment  of  the  Air  Force 
e corrected to show that the 
dered  for  the  period 
by is, declared void and 

It is further directed that he be provided  supplemental consideration 
for  promotion  to the  grade  of  senior  master  sergeant  for  all  appropriate 
cycles beginning with cycle 93% 

If  AFMPC  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  for  a  final  determination  on  the  individual's 
qualification for the promotion. 

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 he/she? was promoted to the higher 
grade on  the  date of  rank established  by  the supplemental promotion  and 
that helshe? is entitled to all pay, allowances, and benefits of such grade as of 
that date. 

Deputyfor 
Air Force Review Boards 

., 

e

AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

IN THE MATTER OF: 

DOCKET NUMBER:  94-02647 

-

* .  

 

COUNSEL:  None 

HEARING DESIRED:  Yes 

MAY  2 3  v395 

The  Enlisted  Performance  Report  (EPR) rendered  for  the  period 
29 January 1990 through 9 October 1990 be declared void. 

D  T  T: 

The  contested EPR  was used  as  a vehicle  for punishment  as  the 
result of an August 1990 IG grievance concerning the rater.  The 
report  failed to  include all  accomplishments during  the  rating 
period and specific achievements were deliberately omitted. 

In support of his appeal, applicant provides documents such as a 
unit effectiveness inspection conducted by the 14th Air Division 
IG  on  4-14 February  1990, along  with  letters of  appreciation, 
which he believes demonstrate his achievements and the quality of 
his performance.  Also provided  is a  supporting statement from 
the squadron commander during the rating period in question.  The 
squadron commander  indicates that, because  of  problems between 
the applicant and  the rater, the  commander and  senior enlisted 
advisor  of  the  14th  Air  Division  intervened  twice  to  "save" 
applicant's career.  Based on the rater's vindictive actions, he 
has  serious doubts about the validity of  the EPR.  He believes 
there  was  a  problem  between  the  rater  and  the  applicant; the 
applicant was trying to put it behind, but the rater was not.  He 
is totally convinced the rater wanted to damage the applicant's 
career  at  any  cost.  He  recommends  the  contested  report  be 
withdrawn. 

Applicant's complete submission is attached at Exhibit A. 

TEMENT OF FACTS: 

b 

The applicant is currently serving in the Regular Air  Force in 
the grade of master sergeant. 

The  applicant  twice  appealed  the  contested  report  under  the 
provisions  of  AFR  31-11.  His  request  to  void  the  report  was 
denied by  the Airman  Personnel Records Review Board  (APRRB) on 
3 February 1992 and again on 8  October 1993; however, the APRRB 

directed that the number of days of supervision on the contested 
EPR be changed from 254 to 223 based on applicant's 31-day TDY. 
EPR profile since 1 9 8 5   reflects the following: 

OVERALL EVALUATION 

8 5  
86 
87 
88 
8 9  
90 
90 
9 1  
92 
93 
94 
*  Contested report. 

Jun 
Jan 
Jan 
Jan 
Jan 
Jan 
Oct 
May 
May 
May 
May 

8 
11 
11 
11 
11 
2 8  
9
2 1  
2 1  
21 
21 

*

 

9 
9 
9 
9 
9 
5 (New System) 
4 
5 
5 
5 
5 

The Chief, S S B s   &  BCMR  Appeals Section, AFMPC/DPMAJAl, reviewed 
this application and states that due to unusual work  situations, 
members  are  often  physically  separated  from  their  reporting 
officials. 
Sometimes  only  the  results  of  work  or  only 
information obtained  from other sources is available.  They do 
not  find a lack of direct observation as a sufficient reason to 
render an evaluation invalid.  Applicant provides no  input  from 
those of his rating chain or other evidence showing that an error 
occurred  or  that  an  improper  evaluation  was  provided. 
His 
allegation that several significant accomplishments were omitted 
from the EPR is not a reason to void the report.  The same rater 
prepared  applicant's previous report  ( 2 8   Jan  9 0 )  ,  which had  an 
overall "511 and is not contested.  Insofar as the allegation of 
damage to his career is concerned, a report  is not  in error or 
unjust  solely because  it  may  impact  future promotion  or career 
opportunities.  Even though he  alleges the  contested EPR  was  a 
form  of  retribution  for an  IG grievance  filed  in August  1990, 
there is no evidence it was.  They recommend denial. 
A complete copy of the evaluation is attached at Exhibit C .  
The Chief, Inquiries/Special Actions Section, AFMPC/DPMAJWl, also 
reviewed this application and states that  should the Board void 
the contested report in its entirety, upgrade the overall rating, 
o r   make  any  other  significant  change,  the  applicant  will  be 
entitled to supplemental promotion consideration to the grade of 
senior master  sergeant commencing with cycle  93S8,  providing  he 
is otherwise eligible. 

A complete copy of their evaluation is attached at Exhibit D. 

2 

The  applicant  reviewed  the  advisory  opinions  and  states  the 
supporting documentation he  provided  is  proof  that  the  EPR  is 
flawed and not formulated on the results of his work.  There is 
never any mention in his documentation that this report was not 
by  direct observation, for indeed it was.  On the contrary, he 
contends that  based  on direct  observation, specific noteworthy 
accomplishments were  purposely  omitted  due  to  the  IG grievance 
filed  referencing  the  rater  and  indorser.  The  Air  Staff  is 
incorrect in stating "applicant provides no input from those of 
his rating chain.  Input was submitted from the unit commander, 
whose  signature can be  witnessed  in block  9 of  the  EPR.  with 
reference  to  the  report  ending  28  January  1990, he  asks  what 
would  make  two  individuals  who  thought  so  highly  of  him  in 
January change so drastically by October, just nine months later. 
The change in disposition was a direct result of the IG grievance 
he filed exposing fraud, mismanagement and waste, citing both the 
rater and the rater's rater as accomplices. 
Applicant's complete response is attached at Exhibit F .  

THE BOARD CONCJiUDES THAT: 

1.  The  applicant  has  exhausted  all  remedies  provided  by 
existing law or regulations. 

2.  The application was not timely filed; however, it is in the 
interest of justice to excuse the failure to timely file. 

3.  Insufficient  relevant  evidence  has  been  presented  to 
demonstrate the existence of  probable  error or  injustice.  The 
supporting statements from the commander and the Lowry training 
chief  were  noted;  however,  the  majority  of  the  Board  is  not 
persuaded  that  the  contested  EPR  should  be  voided.  Applicant 
argues, in part, that  the report  is  flawed because  signficiant 
achievements  have  been  omitted;  nevertheless,  it  is  the 
responsibility  of  the  rater--not  the  applicant--to  determine 
which  achievements  are  to  be  included  in  a  performance 
evaluation. 
While  a  personality  conflict  may  have  existed 
between  the applicant and  the rater, the majority  of  the Board 
does not believe this inherently makes the report as rendered an 
inaccurate  assessment.  Furthermore,  contrary  to  applicant's 
allegation, the evidence provided  fails to demonstrate that  the 
EPR in question was used in retribution against an IG grievance. 
In view of the above findings, and in the absence of substantial 
evidence  to  the  contrary, the  majority  of  the  Board  finds  no 
compelling basis to recommend granting the relief sought in this 
application. 

3 

4.  The applicant's case is adequately documented and it has not 
been  shown that  a  personal  appearance with  or  without  counsel 
will  materially  add  to  our  understanding  of  the  issue(s) 
involved.  Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorably 
considered. 

A  majority  of  the panel  finds  sufficient evidence of  error  or 
injustice and recommends the application be denied. 

: 

The following members of the Board considered this application in 
Executive Session on 2 March  1995, under the provisions of  AFR 
31-3 : 

Mr. G. Hammond Myers 111, Panel Chairman 
Ms. Karen Bingo, Member 
Mr. Gregory H. Petkoff, Member 

By  a  majority  vote,  the  Board  recommended  denial  of  the 
application.  Ms.  Bingo voted  to correct the records, but  does 
not wish to submit a Minority Report. The following documentary 
evidence was considered: 

Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 16 May 94, w/atchs. 
Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records. 
Exhibit C.  Letter, AFMPC/DPMAJAl, dated 20 Jul 94. 
Exhibit D.  Letter, AFMPC/DPMAJWl, dated 1 Aug 94. 
Exhibit E.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 2 Aug 94. 
Exhibit F.  Letter, Applicant , dated 18 Aug 94. 

GI  HAMMOND MYER 
Panel Chairman 

4 

. 
, --- ,  I 

w
. e   * -  

. . L a  

-

 

'f  . 

1 

DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR  FORCE 

HEADQUARTERS AIR  FORCE MILITARY PERSONNEL CENTER 

RANDOLPH AIR  FORCE BASE TX  78150-6001 

MEMQRANDUM  FOR  AFECMR 

FROM: 

HG!  A F M P C / D P M A J A I  
550 C  Street  West,  S u i t e   8 
R a n d o l p h   A F b   TX  781!X)-4710 

SUBJECT: 

1 i cati o n -  

R e q u e s t e d   A c t i o n .   V o i d   e n l i s t e d   p e r f o r m a n c e   r e p a r t   (EF'R) 

c l o s i n g   9  Qct  90. 
f a i l e d   t o   i n c l u d e   a l l   a c c o m p l i s h m e n t s   d , u r i n g   t h i s  p e r i o d .  . . u s e d   as 
B a s i s   f o r   R e q u e s t .   A p p l i c a n t   s t a t e s , .  " T h e   p e r f o r m a n c e   r e p o r t  
a  way  t a   g e t   back  f o r   a n   IG c o m p l a i n t   e x p o s i n g   f r a u d ,   m i s m a n a g e m e n t  
a n d   waste.  I' 

R e c a m m e n d a t  i o n .   Deny. 

F a c t s   a n d   CaKiKients. 

a.  U p p e a l   is  t i m e l y .   Similar  a p p e a l s   t i n d e r   AFR  Sl-11, 
C o r r e c t i o n   o f   A i r m a n   a n d   O f f i c e r   E v a l u a t i o n   R e p o r t s ,   15  Hat-  9fI? 
were  d e n i e d   b y   t h e   Fsirman  P e r s a n n e l   R e c o r d s   Review  b o a r d -  (AF'RRB) 
an  3  F e b   92  a n d   €3  Qct  43. 

b .  

AFR  -39-62,  T h e   E n l i s t e d   E v a l u a t i o n   S y s t e m   (EES), 

1  M a y   89, is  t h e  a p p l i c a b l e   r e g u f a t i a n .  

c .   A p p l i c a n t   s t a t e s ,   "It  I.EF'R3  w a s   i m p r o p e r   a.nd  c t n j t i s t 1 . y  
T h e  
t r u e   c h a r a c t e r  

p r e p a r e d   as a  r e s u l t   o f   an  IG g r i e v a n c e   f i l e d   i n   A u g u s t   1990. 
EF'F:  w a s   i m p r o p e r   b e c a u s e   1.  t  d e l  i b e r a t e l y   o m i  t t e d   my 
a n d   f a i l e d   t o  h i g h l i g h t   my  o u t s t a n d i n g   p e r f o r m a n c e   d u r i n g   t h i s  
t.hat  caused  h a r m   a n d   damage  t a   m y   career. . . . 
p e t - i a d .  
t h e   AFBCMR,  he  s t a t e s ,   ".The  EFR  was  n o t   b a s e d   on  t h e   r e q u i r e d  
m b s e r v a t i o n   a n d   e v a l u a t i o n   b y   Crater]. ' I  

I t .   w a s   r-rnjust  b e c a u s e   i t   c o n t a i n e d   r a t i n g s   a n d   cornmerits 

I n   h i s   memorandum  t o  

I '  

( 1  :t  What  t h e   r a t e r  ' s  r - a t i c s n a l e   may  h a v e   b e e n   for- 

t h i s  w m l u a t i o n   is  tinC::nawni;  h o w e v e r ,   h e   a p p a r e n t l y   d e t e r m i n e d  
appI j. c a n t  ' s  p e r f  at-rriance  Piad  riot  nleri t e d   a n   o v e r a l  1  " 5 "   r e p o r t  n 
t o   uncrc.ual  work  si tt-rat i ons  memberc,  are  cIf t e n   p h y s i c a l  1 y  s e p a r a t e d  
qrorrt  t h e i r -   r e p o r i r i n g   o f - f i c i a l . ; .  
W h i l e   d i r e c t   o b s e r v a t i o n   is  t h e  
uptimi-rm,  s o m e t i m e s   a n l y   t h e   results o f   w o r k :   a r e   a v a i l s . b l e   a.nd  a t  
a v a i  1. a b  1 e . 
o t h e r   t i m e s ,   a n l y   i n f o r m a t i o n   o b t a i n e d   f r o m   o t h e r   socit-ces  is 

Due 

( a )   R e p o r t i n g   o f f i c i a l s  a r e   t o  ensure  a l l   t h e s e  

f a c t o r s   a r e   c o n s i d e r e d   so  a  + a i r   and  o b j e c t i v e   e v a l u a t i o n   can  b e  
rendered. 
as a  s u f f i c i e n t   reason  t o  r e n d e r   an  e v a l u a t i o n   i n v a l i d .  

A s   a  r e s u l t ,   w e   do  n o t   f i n d   a  l a c k   o f   d i r e c t   o b s e r v a t i o n  

fr-am  t h o s e   o f   h i s  r a t i n g   c h a i n   o r   o t h e r   e v i d e n c e   showing  t h a t   an 
e r r o r   o c c u r r e d   o r   t h a t   an  improper  e v a l u a t i o n   was  p r o v i d e d .  

i b )   Regardless,  a p p l i c a n t   p r o v i d e s   no  i n p u t  

e- 

(21  A p p l i c a n t ' s   a l l e g a t i o n   t h a t   s e v e r a l   s i g n i f i c a n t  

accomplishments  were  o m i t t e d   f r o m   t h e   EFH  i s  n o t   a  reason  t o  v o i d  
t h e   r e p o r t .   Due t o   l i m i t e d   space  a l l o t t e d   f o r   comments  on  t h e   EF'Fi 
f o r m ,   r a t e r s ;   a r e   o f t e n   u n a b l e   t o  mention  each  and  e v e r y   s i n g l e  
accomplishment. 
s t a n t i a l l y   add  ta a r e p o r t .  
In  t h e   absence  o f   c o n f i r m a t i o n   t o  t h e  
a l l   t h e   a l l o t t e d   space. 
accompl i shments  d u r i n g   t h e   r e p o r t  i ng  p e r i o d  . 
c o n t r a r y ,   w e   conclude  t h e   r a t e r   was.  f u l l y   aware  o+ a p p l i c a n t ' s  

They  m u s t   sometimes  document  o n l y   t h o s e   which  scrb- 

I n  t h i s  case,  w e   n o t e   t h e   r a t e r   used 

a p p l i c a n t ' s   p r e v i o u s   r e p o r t   c l o s i n g   28  Jan  ?0--that 

( 3 )   We  a l s o   n o t e   t h a t   t h i s   same  r a t e r   had  p r e p a r e d  
r e p o r t   was  an 
I'  However,  it  i s n ' t   c a n t e s t e d   as is  t h i s   o v e r a l l .   " Y i i  

averal 1  "5 . 
r e p o r t .  
cerned,  a  r e p o r t .   i c .   n o t   i n  e r r o r   o r   u n j u s t   s o l e l y   becact~ie i t  may 
i m p a c t   f c r t u r p   p r o m o t i o n   o r   c a r e e r   o p p o r t u n i t i e s .   A p p l i c a n t   m u s t  
p r o v e   t h e   c a n t e s t e d   r e p o r t   is i n  e r r o r   a r   u n j u s t   based  on  i t s  cori- 
t e n t s ,   n o t   c a r e e r   impact.  T h i s   he  ha.;  f a i l e d   t o  dn. 

I n s o f a r   as  t h e   a l l e g a t i o n   o f   damage  t c !   h i s  c a r e e r   is  can- 

d. 

In  h i s   17  Jun  93 l e t t e r ,   t h e   9 CF'TS/CC  s t a t e s ,  

I '   * . =  
{:her-e  was  a  p e r s o n a l  i t y  canf 1 i c t  between  t h e   two  c+ them  Cappl i - 
c a n t / r a t e r  f  . . [ r a t e r  3  h e l d   a grudge  a g a i  n s t   h i m ,   and  would  gc3  out 
af  h i s .   way  t.a h u r t   Eappl ic:ant  'SI  c a r e e r -  
He 3.1 52.0  p r a v i  des  s t a t e - -  
nients  o f   Etppreci a t  i art  and  recornmendati on  f r a f i   o t h e r   i n d i  v i  dtraf 5. n o t  
i n  t h e   r a t i n g   c h a i n   o f   t h e   c o n t e s t e d   EPF;. 
e x p l a i n   how  t h e   r e p o r t   is s p e c i f i c a l l y   f l a w e d .   Even  though  t h e  
a p p l i c a n t   a l l e g e s   t h e   c o n t e s t e d   EFH  w a 5   a  . f o r m   o+ r e t r i b u t i o n   +or 
ari  IG grieva.nce  - F i l e d   i n  Acrg  9O5  t h e r e   i s  na  evidence  i t .  w a s .  

None  o f   t h e s e ,   however, 

Summary.  Ba.sed  an  e v i  cience  p r o v i d e d  , nut-  above  recommendati on 

j. 5  cansr dered  val i d 

c c :  
SAF i Pl I FF: 

DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE 

HEADQUARTERS AIR FORCE MIUTARY PERSONNEL CENTER 

RANDOLPH AIR FORCE BASE TEXAS 

MEMORANDUM FOR AFBCMR 

FROM:  AFMPC/DPMA;JWl 

550 C Street West, Ste 09 
Randolph AFB TX 78150-4711 

"1  AbG 

1994 

e.' - 

- 

SUBJECT : 

rection of Military Records (MSgB 

pernested Action.  The applicant is requesting'the AFBCMR void his 
We will address the 

Enlisted Performance Report  (EPR) closing 9 Oct 90. 
supplemental promotion consideration issue should the request be approved. 

-son 

for Reauest.  The applicant claims the EPR was used as a vehicle 

for punishment for filing an IG complain. 

Facta. 

See attached AFMPC/DPMAJAl Ltr, 20 Jul 94. 

gj-scussion. 

The first time the contested report was considered in the 
promotion process was cycle 93S8 to SMSgt (promotions effective Apr 92-Mar 
93). 
overall rating, or make any other significant change, providing he is 
otherwise eligible, the applicant will be entitled to supplemental promotion 
consideration beginning with cycle 9388. 

Should the AFBCMR void the contested report in its entirety, upgrade the 

pecommendatlon.  See discussion above concerning any 

promotion consideration the applicant may be entitled. 
recommendation of AFMPC/DPMAJA1. 

We defer to the 

Chief, Inqs/Spec Actions Section 
Airman Promotion Branch 

Atch: 
AFMPC/DPM?iJAl Ltr, 20 Jul 94, w/Atchd Case File 

cc : 
SAF/MIBR