AIR FORCE,BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

JUL  0 7  

IN THE MATTER OF: 

DOCKET NUMBER:  97- 02888 
COUNSEL:  None 
HEARING DESIRED:  NO 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 
1.  The Enlisted Performance Report  (EPR) closing 21 May  1 9 9 0   be 
changed to reflect in Block 111, Item 4 flExemplifies the standard 
of  conductIf;  Item  6  ''Consistently  exceeds  all  training 
requirements";  Item  7  "Highly skilled writer  and  cornmunicatorlf 
and  in  Block  IV, Rater  and  Indorser's recommendations  reflect 
"5s . I' 
Or, in the 'alternative: 

2.  Void the report in its entirety. 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

--  

The  EPR  does  not  accurately  reflect  his  performance  for  the 
rating period. 
In support of his request, the applicant submitted a copy of the 
Airman  Personnel  Records  Review  Board  (APRRB)  decision  and 
statements from the rater and indorser of the contested report. 

His complete submission is attached at Exhibit A. 

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 

The applicant is currently serving in the Regular Air Force grade 
of master sergeant (E-7). 

A  similar  appeal  by  the  applicant  under  AFI  36-2401  was 
considered and denied by the APRRB. 

The following is a resume of his EPRs. 

PERIOD ENDING 
21 May 1987 
21 May 1988 
21 May 1989 

*  21 May 1990  (EPR) 

OVERALL EVALUATION 

9 
9 
9 
4 

21 May 1991 
21 May 1992 
21 May 1993 
21 May 1994 
21 May 1995 
21 May 1996 
29 Sep 1996 

Note:  *  Contested report. 

AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

The  Enlisted  Promotion  Branch,  AFPC/DPPPWB,  reviewed  the 
application  and  stated  that  the  first  promotion  cycle  the 
contested EPR was used in the promotion process was cycle 94S8 to 
senior  master  sergeant  (E-8)  (promotions effective  Apr  93-Mar 
94). 
Should  the  AFBCMR  void  the  contested  report  in  its 
entirety,  upgrade  the  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 94S8. 
A complete copy of the evaluation is attached at Exhibit C. 
The  Chief,  BCMR  and  SSB  Section,  AFPC/DPPPA,  reviewed -the 
application  and  stated  that  it  is  Air  Force  policy  that  an 
evaluation report  is considered  to represent the rating chain's 
best  judgment at  the time  it  is rendered.  Once it  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 submitted letters from 
his  rater and  indorser on the contested  report.  Although they 
fully  support  upgrading  the  contested  EPR, the  rater  does  not 
specifically state what he knows now that he didn't know when he 
completed the EPR.  The indorser, likewise supports the appeal, 
but also stated he based his indorsement on a statement from the 
rater even  though he  had  reservations.  The  applicant has  not 
substantiated the contested report was not rendered in good faith 
by  all  evaluators  based  on  knowledge  available  at  the  time. 
Based  on  the  evidence  provided,  they  recommend  denial  of  the 
request. 

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

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

The  applicant  reviewed  the  evaluations  and  responded  that  he 
found it  difficult to comprehend that  signed letters by  a rater 
and an indorser stating that an EPR  is inaccurate and  should be 
corrected  is  too  llvaguell to  be  acted  upon.  Both  individuals 
reviewed  the  original  package  and  fully  concurred  with  the 

2 

AFBCMR 97-02888 

requested action.  Certainly their testimony concerning their own 
writing  should be  compelling enough to fix this error.  He also 
found it particularly disturbing that matters of injustice are at 
the mercy of  time limits.  He believes the Board also recognizes 
this and provides for waivers of such time constraints.  He hopes 
that  the  Board  will  waive  the  time  restriction, recognize this 
case as a bad EPR compounded by a bad review decision by AFPC and 
honor his requested action. 

In response to  a  letter  from  the AFBCMR,  applicant  amended his 
request  thereby  giving  the  Board  the  option of  either  amending 
the report as requested, or voiding it in its entirety. 
Applicant's responses are attached at Exhibits F and G. 

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT: 

The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by existing 

1. 
law or regulations. 

The application was timely filed. 

2 .  
3.  Sufficient  relevant  evidence  has  been  presented  to 
demonstrate the existence of  probable error or injustice.  After 
a  thorough  review  of  the  applicant's  submission,  substantkal 
doubt  has  been  created that  the  EPR  in question is an  accurate 
reflection  of  the  applicant's  performance  and  demonstrated 
potential  during  the  reporting  period. 
His  contention  of  a 
personality  conflict  with  insufficient  communication  with  his 
rater resulted  in an unfair and  inaccurate assessment  is noted. 
This is supported by  letters from the rater and  indorser on the 
contested  report.  In  order  to  offset  any  possibility  of  an 
injustice  we  believe  the  contested  EPR  should be  declared  void 
and applicant be provided supplemental promotion consideration. 

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  f o r   the period  22 May 
1989 through 21 May  1990, be  declared void  and  removed from his 
record. 
It  is  further  recommended  that  he  be  provided  supplemental 
consideration  for  promotion  to  the  grade  of  senior  master 
sergeant for all appropriate cycles beginning with cycle 94S8. 

If selected for promotion to the grade of  senior master sergeant 
by  supplemental  consideration,  he  be  provided  any  additional 
supplemental  consideration  required  as  a  result  of  that 
selection. 

3 

AFBCMR 97-02888 

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

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  for a 
final  determination  on  the  individual's qualifications  for  the 
promotion. 

The following members of the Board considered this application in 
Executive Session on 20 January 1 9 9 8   and 2 9   April 1998,  under the 
provisions of AFI 36-2603: 

Mr. LeRoy T. Baseman, Panel Chair 
Mr. Frederick R. Beaman, 111, Member 
Mr. Michael P. Higgins, Member 
Mrs. Kay Byrne, Examiner (without vote) 

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

DD Form 149,  dated 24  Sep 97  with atchs. 
Exhibit A. 
Applicant's Master Personnel Records. 
Exhibit B. 
Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPWB, dated 6 Oct 97. 
Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPA, dated 14 Oct 9 7 .  
Exhibit E.  Letter AFBCMR, dated 27  Oct 97. 
Exhibit F.  Applicant%  Lette  dated 2 Nov 9 7 .  
2 Apr 9 8 .  
Exhibit G.  Applicant I s  Lett&  &ed 

Panel Chair 

4 

AFBCMR 97-02888 

*

.

 

DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE 

WASHINGTON, DC 

Office of the Assistant Secretary 

AFBCMR 97-02888 

MEMORANDUM FOR THE CHIEF OF FORCE 

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 1 16), it is directed that: 

It is M h e r  directed that he be provided supplemental consideration for promotion to the 

grade of senior master sergeant for all appropriate cycles beginning with cycle 94S8. 

If selected for promotion to the grade of senior master sergeant by supplemental 

consideration, he be provided any additional supplemental consideration required as a result of 
that selection. 

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

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 for a final determination on the individual’s qualifications for the 
promotion. 

c/ Director 

U 

Air Force Review Boards Agency