RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  97-03345
                             INDEX CODE: 111.05

                             COUNSEL:  NONE

                             HEARING DESIRED:  NO



_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

The Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) rendered for the period  2 March  1996
through 1 March 1997, be removed  from  his  records  and  replaced  with  a
report covering the period 17 March 1996 through 1 August 1996.
_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The contested report is in error because the rater  did  not  supervise  him
during the time frame  indicated  on  the  report  and  the  duty  title  is
incorrect.

It  is  unjust  because  when  he  questioned  his  previous   and   current
supervisor, on 2 December 1996, why a report was not  written,  both  stated
because an EPR shell was never received.

In support  of  his  request,  applicant  provided  his  expanded  comments,
statements  from  the  rater  on  the  contested  report,   the   NCOIC   of
Evaluations, and the supervisor during the contested  rating  period.   Also
provided was a copy of his AFI 36-2401 appeal  package  which  included  the
contested report as well as a copy of  a  reaccomplished  report  reflecting
different reporting dates and evaluators.

Applicant's complete submission is attached at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Information obtained from the Personnel  Data  System  reflects  applicant’s
Total Active Federal Military Service Date (TAFMSD)  as  17  November  1983.
He is  currently  serving  in  the  grade  of  technical  sergeant,  with  a
projected promotion to the grade of master sergeant.

APR/EPR profile since 1984 reflects the following:

      PERIOD ENDING    EVALUATION OF POTENTIAL

            10 Sep 84             9
            10 Sep 85             9
            01 Sep 86             9
            31 Mar 87             9
            31 Mar 88             9
            03 Mar 89             9
            03 Mar 90             5 (New system)
            03 Mar 91             5
            03 Mar 92             5
            31 Oct 92             4
            31 Oct 93             5
            31 May 94             5
            31 May 95             5
            01 Mar 96             5
        *   01 Mar 97             5
            01 Mar 98             5

*  Contested report.  A similar appeal submitted  under  the  provisions  of
AFI 36-2401 was denied by the Evaluation Reports Appeal Board on  29  August
1997.

The PDS reflects applicant’s duty title as  “NCOIC,  AFROTC  D320”  with  an
effective date of 18 March 1996.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The Enlisted Promotion Branch, AFPC/DPPPWB, reviewed  this  application  and
states that should the Board  void  the  report  closing  1  March  1997  as
requested, and direct the report closing 1 August 1996 be made a  matter  of
record, providing he is otherwise eligible, the applicant will  be  entitled
to supplemental promotion consideration  beginning  with  cycle  97E7.   The
applicant will become a selectee during this cycle if the Board  grants  the
request, pending a favorable data verification  and  the  recommendation  of
the commander.

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

The BCMR  and  SSB  Section,  AFPC/DPPPAB,  reviewed  this  application  and
recommended denial based on  the  evidence  provided.   Their  comments,  in
part, follow.

DPPAB noted that applicant provided a letter of support from  the  rater  of
the contested report.  However, there is no  evidentiary  support  from  the
indorser of the 1 March 1997 EPR.  Noting the statement  from  the  Military
Personnel  Flight  (MPF),  DPPPAB  finds  it  hard   to   believe   that   a
noncommissioned officer in the  United  States  Air  Force,  who  personally
observed an update of erroneous data in the  personnel  data  system,  would
have, with good  conscience,  stood  by  without  correcting  the  data,  or
directing its correction, especially if he  discovered  a  memo  for  record
requesting a different effective date.

In reviewing the travel voucher provided by the  applicant  to  substantiate
the number of days his former rater was TDY, DPPPAB  found  a  total  of  38
days of consecutive  TDY,  from  9  July  1996  to  15  August  1996.   They
subtracted 38 days from 138 and determined  there  were  only  100  days  of
total supervision.  Based on their  findings,  they  conclude  the  proposed
rater did not supervise the applicant for  120  days  and,  there,  was  not
required or authorized by the governing regulation to render  an  evaluation
report as the applicant contends he should have.

Based on  the  documentation  submitted,  it  appears  the  only  correction
required to the EPR closing 1 March 1997 is to change the number of days  of
supervision (Section I, item 8) from 255 to 211 (2  Aug  96  through  1  Mar
97).  They also do not object to changing the duty title (Section  II,  item
1) to NCOIC, AFROTC Detachment 320 on the 1 March 1997 report.

DPPPAB pointed out for the Board’s consideration that voiding  the  1  March
1997 EPR and accepting the proposed 1 August 1996  EPR  would  generate  the
requirement for an annual EPR closing 1 August 1997.

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

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant reviewed the advisory opinions and states  he  disagreed  with
the advisory opinion and provided additional comments as to why  the  report
should have closed on 1 August 1996 rather than 1 March 1997,  and  comments
regarding the number of days of supervision.

Applicant's complete response is attached at Exhibit F.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

1.    The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by existing laws  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  supporting
documentation submitted by the applicant, we believe  the  applicant  had  a
change of reporting officials, effective 1 August 1996.  It  appears,  based
on the statements from Captain J--- and Lt Col S---, that Lt Col  S---became
applicant’s reporting official on 2  August  1996.   Therefore,  during  the
period 3 March 1996  to  1  August  1996,  the  applicant’s  supervisor  was
Captain J--- and a performance report should have  been  accomplished.   The
Air Force states that Captain J---  did  not  supervise  the  applicant  the
required 120 days to authorize a report because of the number  of  days  the
rater  was  TDY.   However,  Captain  J---  stopped  being  the  applicant’s
supervisor on 2 August 1996  and  the  days  of  TDY  after  this  date  are
irrelevant.  The period of supervision was 138  days  and  a  report  should
have been rendered by Captain J--- for this period.  Based  on  the  rater’s
statement and having no basis to question his  integrity,  we  believe  that
the benefit of any doubt  should  be  resolved  in  the  applicant’s  favor.
Accordingly, we recommend that the contested EPR  for  the  period  2  March
1996  through  1  March  1997  be  declared  void  and  replaced  with   the
reaccomplished report covering the period 17  March  1996  through  1 August
1996.  Based on this recommendation, the period on the prior and  subsequent
reports will need to be adjusted.  In addition, we recommend he be  provided
supplemental promotion consideration for all  appropriate  cycles  beginning
with cycle 97E7.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT:

The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air  Force  relating
to APPLICANT, be corrected to show that:

            a.   The Enlisted Performance Report, AF Form 910, rendered  for
the period 2 March 1996 through 1 March 1997, be declared void  and  removed
from his records.

            b.   The attached Enlisted  Performance  Report,  AF  Form  910,
rendered for the period 17 March 1996 through 1 August 1996, be inserted  in
his record in its proper sequence.

            c.   The Enlisted Performance Report, AF Form 910, rendered  for
the period 1 June 1995 through 1 March 1996, be amended to read in Block  7,
Period of Report, Thru: 16 March 1996.

            d. The Enlisted Performance Report, AF Form  910,  rendered  for
the period 2 March 1997 through 1 March 1998 be  amended  to  read  for  the
period 2 August 1996 through 1 March 1998.

It  is  further  recommended  that  applicant   be   provided   supplemental
consideration for  promotion  to  the  grade  of  master  sergeant  for  all
appropriate cycles beginning with cycle 97E7.

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 11 August 1998, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

      Mr. Douglas J. Heady, Panel Chair
      Mr. Joseph G. Diamond, Member
      Mr. Henry Romo, Jr., Member

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

      Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 16 Oct 97, w/atchs.
      Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
      Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPPPWB, dated 13 Nov 97.
      Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/DPPPAB, dated 20 Nov 97.
      Exhibit D. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 8 Dec 97.
      Exhibit F. Applicant’s Response, dated 9 Dec 97 w/atchs.





                             DOUGLAS J. HEADY
                             Panel Chair


AFBCMR 97-03345





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:

      The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force
relating to APPLICANT be corrected to show that:

            a. The Enlisted Performance Report, AF Form 910, rendered for
the period 2 March 1996 through 1 March 1997, be, and hereby is, declared
void and removed from his records.

            b.   The attached Enlisted Performance Report, AF Form 910,
rendered for the period 17 March 1996 through 1 August 1996, be inserted in
his record in the proper sequence.

            c.   The Enlisted Performance Report, AF Form 910, rendered for
the period 1 June 1995 through 1 March 1996, be amended to read in Block 7,
Period of Report, Thru: 16 March 1996.

            d. The Enlisted Performance Report, AF Form 910, rendered for
the period 2 March 1997 through 1 March 1998 be amended to read for the
period 2 August 1996 through 1 March 1998.

      It is further recommended that applicant be provided supplemental
consideration for promotion to the grade of master sergeant for all
appropriate cycles beginning with cycle 97E7.

      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.





                             JOE G. LINEBERGER
                             Director
                             Air Force Review Boards Agency