DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE 

WASHINGTON, DC 

Office of the Assistant Secretary 

AFBCMR 97-03024 

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 1 16), it is directed that: 

declared void and removed from his records. 

cords of the Department of the Air Force relatin 
corrected to show that the Enlisted Performance 
d 28 May 1995 through 27 May 1996, be, and hereby is, 

It is further directed that he be provided supplemental consideration for promotion to the 

grade of senior master sergeant (E-8) for all appropriate cycles beginning with cycle 96E8. 

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 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 
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. 

Air Force Review Boards Agency 

i 

AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

OCT  9 1998 

IN THE MATTER OF: 

DOCKET NUMBER:  97-03024 
COUNSEL:  NONE 

HEARING DESIRED:  NO 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 
His Enlisted Performance Report  (EPR), for the period 28  May 1995 
through  2 7   May  1996,  be  declared  void  and  removed  from  his 
records. 

~- 

~ 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

The rater of  the  report  in question, grossly underreported his 
(applicant's) performance for the period in question.  Appeals to 
correct his records were  rejected.  Intervention by  the Senior 
Rater to correct the record was ignored/dismissed for irrelevant 
reasons.  Applicant states that the rater committed an injustice 
by inaccurately rating his performance.  Substitute reports were 
dismissed  on  the  grounds  of  insufficient  details,  but  the 
critical issue was not centered on the wording used in the unjust 
report. 
In support of his appeal, the applicant submits copies of his two 
earlier  appeals  to  the  Evaluation  Report  Appeal  Board  (ERAB) 
under  AFI  3 6 - 2 4 0 1 ,   with  reaccomplished  EPRs  submitted  to  the 
E m .  

Applicant's submission is attached at Exhibit A. 

STATEMENT OF FACTS 

Applicant  is currently serving in the  Regular Air Force  in the 
grade of master sergeant (E-7). 
Two similar appeals were submitted under AFI 36- 2401,  Evaluation 
Report  Appeal  Board  (ERAB) which were  denied on 3 1  January and 
3  July 1997. 

Applicant's EPR profile is as follows: 

PERIOD ENDING 

OVERALL EVALUATION 

6 Jun 
6 Jun 
15 Apr 
2 7   May 
2 7   May 
*  2 7   May 
2 7   May 
27  May 
*  Contested report 

91 
92 
93 
94 
95 
96 
97 
98 

AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

The Chief, Inquiries/AFBCMR Section, Enlisted Promotion Branch, 
HQ AFPC/DPPPWB, states that the first cycle the contested report 
was considered in the promotion process was cycle 9638 to senior 
master  sergeant. 
Should  the  Board  void  the  report  in  its 
entirety,  upgrade  the  overall  rating,  or  make  any  other 
significant change, provided he is otherwise eligible, applicant 
will  be  entitled  to  supplemental  promotion  consideration 
beginning with cycle 9638. 
A copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit C. 

The  Chief,  Evaluation  Procedures  Section,  HQ  AFPC/DPPPEP, 
reviewed  the  application and  recommends applicant's request  be 
denied.  They state that  it is the responsibility of evaluators 
to determine which accomplishments are included on the EPR.  The 
regulation charges  evaluators with  rendering  fair  and  accurate 
EPRs and ensuring the comments support the ratings.  There is no 
evidence to indicate either evaluator on the original EPR failed 
in his responsibility.  Further, the lack of appeal support from 
the rater speaks volumes as to his belief the contested EPR is an 
accurate and fair assessment of the applicant's achievements and 
abilities.  A review of the documents provided does not reveal a 
violation of  regulatory provisions or indicate an injustice has 
occurred.  It appears this appeal is simply an effort to remove 
an "undesirable" report after two transparent attempts to rewrite 
history failed. 
A  complete  copy  of  this  Air  Force  evaluation  is  attached  at 
Exhibit D. 

The Chief, BCMR and SSB Section, HQ AFPC/DPPP, states that they 
concur  with  the  advisory  opinions  from  AFPC/DPPPEP  and 

AFPC/DPPPWB.  They do not believe replacement of the applicant's 
EPR is appropriate, nor do they recommend he receive supplemental 
promotion  consideration.  Based  on  the  lack  of  evidence,  they 
recommend the applicant's request be denied. 

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

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 
Copies  of  the  Air  Force  evaluations  were  forwarded  to  the 
applicant on  12 January  1998  for review and  response within  30 
days.  As  of  this date, no  response has been  received by  this 
office. 

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, it 
appears  the  applicant was  rated  on what  was  considered at  the 
time, an accurate and  impartial  evaluation of  his performance. 
We  note  there  is  no  statement  submitted by  the  rater  of  the 
contested  report. 
However,  the  rater's  rater  submitted  a 
statement  indicating  that  he  became  the  Chief,  Inspection 
Division on 1 April  1996  and immediately began the Wing Quality 
Air  Force Assessment  (QAFA) which lasted from 8 April  to  6  May 
1996 and this did not afford him  an opportunity to  observe the 
applicant's  performance  first  hand. 
He  states  that  as  a 
newcomer,  he  relied  on  the  rater  to  provide  an  accurate 
assessment  of  applicant's performance.  The  Senior  Rater  also 
submitted  statements in applicant's behalf.  In one  statement, 
the Senior Rater stated that the EPR  in question closed out at 
the Senior Rater's Deputy level which contained a rating that did 
not permit him  (Senior Rater) to comment on or sign the EPR. 
A 
subsequent  statement  from  the  Senior  Rater  indicates  that  the 
rater  wrote  a  report  that  omitted  notable  achievements, 
underrated  the  applicant's performance,  leadership,  managerial 
skills, and professional qualities and did not afford him  (Senior 
Rater)  an  opportunity  to  enter  comments.  It  appears that  the 
Senior  Rater  was  very  knowledgeable  of  the  applicant's 
performance  and  accomplishments.  Therefore, we  recommend  the 
contested  report  be  declared  void  and  removed  from  the 

3 

applicant's records.  We note the applicant's two requests to the 
ERAB  that  the  contested  report  be  removed and  a reaccomplished 
EPR, for  the  same period, be  placed  in his  records.  However, 
without  the  complete  support  of  the  rater,  we  believe  that 
voidance of the report is a more appropriate form of relief.  In 
addition,  applicant  should  be  considered  for  promotion  to  the 
grade  of  senior  master  sergeant  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  28 May 
1995 through 27 May  1996, be  declared void and removed from his 
records. 
It  is  further  recommended  that  he  be  provided  supplemental 
consideration  for  promotion  to  the  grade  of  senior  master 
sergeant  (E-8) for  all  appropriate cycles beginning  with  cycle 
9638. 
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 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 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  3  September  1998,  under  the provisions of 
AFI 36-2603: 

Mr. Henry C. Saunders, Panel Chair 
Mr. Joseph G. Diamond, Member 
Ms. Peggy E. Gordon, Member 

4 

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

Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 7 Oct  97, w/atchs. 

Exhibit  B.  Applicant's EPR Records. 
Exhibit  C.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPPWB, dated 28 Oct  97. 
Exhibit D.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPPEP, dated 2 Dec 97. 
Exhibit  E.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPP, dated 5 Jan 98. 

5 

DEPARTMENT OF  THE A I R   F O R C E  

HEADQUARTERS AIR  FORCE  PERSONNEL CENTER 

RANDOLPH  AIR  FORCE  BASE TEXAS 

MEMORANDUM FOR AFPCDPPPAB 

AFBCMR 
INTURN 

FROM:  HQ AFPCDPPPWB 

550 C Street West, Ste 09 
Randolph AFB TX  78 1 50-47 1 I 

SUBJECT:  Application for Correction of Military Records 

Requested Action  The applicant is requesting the AFBCMR void his Enlisted 

Performance Report (EPR) closing 27 May 96.  We will address tho supplemental promotion 
issue should the EPR be voided. 

Reason for Request.  The applicant claims the rater grossly underreported his 

performance for the period in question and intervention by the Senior Rater to correct the record 
was ignored/dismissed for irrelevant reasons. 

- Facts.  See Hq AFPCKIPPPAJ3 Memorandum. 
Discussion.  The first cycle the contested report was considered  in the promotion 

process was cycle  96E8 to SMSgt (promotions effective Apr 96 - Mar 97).  Should the Board 
void the report in its entirety, upgrade the overall rating, or make any other significant change, 
provided the applicant is otherwise eligible, he will be entitled to supplemental promotion 
consideration beginning with cycle 96E8. 

Recommendation.  We defer to the recommendation of Hq AFPC/DPPPAB. 

Chief Inquiries/AFBCMR Section 
Enlisted Promotion Branch 

DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR  FORCE 

HEADQUARTERS AIR  FORCE PERSONNEL CENTER 

RANDOLPH AIR FORCE BASE TEXAS 

MEMORANDUM FOR  DPPPAB 

SAFfMIBR 

FROM:  HQ AFPC/DPPPEP 

550 C Street West Ste 07 
Randolph AFB TX 781504709 

SUBJ:  Application for Correction of Military Reco 

:- 

2 Dec 97 

REQUESTED ACTION:  Applicant requests the Enlisted Pdonnanca Report (EPR)  cIoSing 
out 27 May 96 be remo~ed from his record. 
BASIS FOR REQUEST  Applicant bases this rqu&  on the allegation the report is unjust and 
does not accurately reflect his performance, and that the comments made by the rater's  rater are 
invalid due to lack of knowledge of the applicant's performance. 
BACKGROUND:  Applicant  submitted an appeal to  the  Evaluation Report Appeals B d  
@RAB) on 21 Oct 96, requesting the contested report be replaced with a new version upgrading 
the ratings and adding the senior I8fcT's  endorsement.  The appeal was denied 31 Jan 97 due to 
insufficient proof of injustice.  Applicant resubmitted his appeal to the ERAB and was again de- 
nied, €or the same m n ,  on 3 Jul97. 
FACTS:  Members appealing reports are required to provide sufficient proof to fully substantiate 
allegations of error or injustice.  Applicant failed to provide sufficient proof in two ERAB appli- 
cations, and has further failed to provide any ucidz'tional information to support this appeal to the 
BCMR. 

DISCUSSION.  It is the responsibility of evaluators to determine wbich accomplishments are 
included on the EPR.  AFI 36-2403,lS Jul94, charges evaluators with rendering fair and accu- 
rate EPRs aud ensuring the OOrzuuents suppart the ratings. There is no evidence to indicate either 
evaluator on the original EPR failed in his respodbility.  Further, the lack of appeal support 
&om the rater speaks volumes ati to his belief the contested EPR is an accurate and fair assess- 
ment of the applicant's  achievements and abilities. 
The rater's  rater clearly agreed with the original EPR and has not provided support to this request 
for removd.  As the rater's rater, it was his responsibility to add oommcnts about the applimt's 
pa6ormance.  The short length of time he was in that role before the closaout date is not an is- 
sue; AFI 36-2403 allow evaluators other tsUm the rater to be assigned at any point, even d e r  the