41 

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

AIR FOR&  BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

IN THE MATTER OF: 

DOCKET NUMBER:  98-00575 

COUNSEL:  NONE 

HEARING DESIRED:  NO 

APPLICANT REOUESTS THAT: 

1.  The Enlisted Performance Report  (EPR) rendered for the period 
2 August 1993 through 1 August 1994 be declared void and removed 
from his records. 

2.  He be  provided  supplemental promotion  consideration  to  the 
grade of master sergeant for promotion cycle 9537. 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

There are  circumstances surrounding the  report that demonstrate 
the over-all promotion recommendation is biased, focusing only on 
an isolated incident for which he received a Letter of Reprimand 
(LOR) from his commander.  He understands that the LOR warranted 
consideration  when  considering  his  performance;  however,  the 
report’s  over-all  rating  reflects  only  his  LOR,  not  his 
performance for the entire period. 

In support of the appeal, applicant submits a personal statement, 
a statement from the rater, and statements from other individuals 
outside the rating chain. 

The  rater  states  that  during  the  reporting  period  he  rated 
applicant’s performance  as  an  overall  “2’,  based  upon  the  fact 
that  he  believed  at  the  time  that  he  was  not  ready  for 
advancement to the rank of master sergeant.  After  looking back 
on his performance and the reasoning for the rating, he may have 
based  the rating more  heavily on two separate instances, rather 
than over the course of  a year.  He  states that  if  he  were  to 
rate him today, under those same circumstances, he would give him 
a higher rating than a \\2,,. 
Applicant’s complete submission is attached at Exhibit A. 

98-00575 

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 

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

The applicant filed four similar appeals under the provisions of 
AFI 36-2401, Codrecting Officer and Enlisted Evaluation Reports. 
The  Evaluation  Report  Appeal  Board  (ERAB) denied  two  of  his 
appeals, and declined to consider the other two appeals because 
he did not provide any substantial new evidence. 

The applicant received an LOR for failing to report for work on 
1 February 1994 which resulted in him being placed on the Control 
Roster, establishment of an Unfavorable Information File  (UIF) , 
and being admitted to the alcohol rehabilitation center. 

EPR profile since 1991 reflects the following: 

PERIOD ENDING 

EVALUATION OF POTENTIAL 

1 Aug 91 
1 Aug 92 
1 Aug 93 
*1 Aug 94(Referral Report) 
7 Mar 95 
7 Mar 96 
7 Mar 97 
15 Oct 97 

*  Contested report. 

The  Chief,  BCMR  and  SSB  Section,  AFPC/DPPPAB,  reviewed  this 
application and states that it is important to hear from all the 
evaluators on the contested report-not only for support, but  for 
clarification/explanation.  They believe the rater’s statement is 
merely  retrospection  mellowed  by  time. 
The  rater  did  not 
indicate  he  now  has  information  not  previously  available  to 
substantiate the  applicant was  dealt  an  injustice, or what  may 
have specifically hindered him from giving the applicant a higher 
rating on the  original report.  They  find it  odd  the  applicant 
did not provide rebuttal comments to the referral report when it 
was  originally  rendered  in August  1994.  The  applicant  states 
that he did not offer comments because he just wanted to put the 
entire incident behind him.  He also states that he was unaware 
the  incident  would  be  used  as  an  indicator  of  his  future 
performance or potential.  They find that unbelievable.  They do 
not understand how a technical sergeant with 15 years in the Air 
Force  could  not  know  that  all  reports,  including  referral 
reports,  would  factor  into  his  promotion  consideration, 

2 

98-00575 

especially since the rater's  comments on the  report indicate he 
supervised 20 people.  They are convinced, that as a result of 
his  nonselection during  this  last promotion  cycle, he  realized 
that had  it not, been  for the  report, he  would  have  been  among 
those selected for promotion to master sergeant.  They point out 
that  an  evaluation  report  is  not  erroneous  or  unjust  solely 
because it may have contributed to nonselection for promotion or 
because  it may  impact future promotion or career opportunities. 
It must be proven the report is erroneous or unjust based on its 
contents.  They  find  no  specific evidence  that  the  contested 
report is either flawed or unjust.  In reference to the applicant 
asserting the  indorsers from the  contested report did  not have 
firsthand knowledge of his duty performance and were therefore, 
unable  to  render a  proper  evaluation of  his  duty performance; 
they state that the Air Force charges evaluators with rendering 
fair  and  accurate  EPRs  and  ensuring  the  comments  support  the 
ratings.  Air  Force  policy  allows  evaluators, other  than  the 
rater, to be  assigned at any point.  Subsequent evaluators are 
not  required  to have  first-hand knowledge of  the  ratee-if  they 
feel their knowledge is insufficient, they may obtain information 
from  other  reliable  sources. 
In  reference  to  the  applicant 
stating that his supervisor was biased, they quote AFI 36-2401 as 
stating, \\To convince the board that an evaluator was unfavorably 
biased, you must cite specific examples of the conflict or bias. 
Provide  firsthand evidence  that  clearly shows how  the  conflict 
prevented  the  evaluator  from  preparing  a  fair  and  accurate 
report.  If other evaluators support an appeal because they were 
unaware of a conflict at the time, they should provide  specific 
information (and cite their sources) which leads them to believe 
the report is not an objective assessment.11 This is not provided 
in this appeal. The contested report was rendered as a result of 
the  applicant's  unacceptable off-duty behavior.  The  fact that 
the  applicant  believes  his  supervisor  did  not  adhere  to  the 
standards by which he was rated is irrelevant.  The applicant's 
commander obviously considered drinking alcohol and not reporting 
for  duty,  to  be  a  serious  offense  worthy  of  reproof. 
The 
applicant was appropriately served an LOR and placed on a Control 
Roster,  which  resulted  in  the  establishment  of  a  UIF. 
The 
applicant  was  expected  to  maintain  standards  of  conduct  and 
responsibility  at  least  as  stringent  as  the  rest  of  the 
noncommissioned officer  (NCO) corps.  The applicant was involved 
in an alcohol-related  incident, a point  not  in  contention, and 
this impropriety was  appropriately reflected  in his  EPR.  They 
understand  the  applicant's  desire  for  the  Board  to  direct 
voidance  of  the  contested  report  because  of  the  promotion 
advantage.  However, to remove the EPR  from his record would be 
unfair  to all  the other NCOs  who  did not  miss  work  because  of 
alcohol  abuse,  and  effectively  performed  their  duties.  They 
conclude  that  removal  of  the  contested  report  would  make  the 
applicant's record inaccurate.  Therefore, based on the evidence 
provided, they recommend denial of applicant's request. 

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

3 

t 

98 -005 75 

The  Chief, Inquiries/AFBCMR Section, AFPC/DPPPAB, also reviewed 
this  application  and  states  that  should  the  Board  void  the 
contested report in its entirety, upgrade the overall rating, or 
make  any  other  significant  change, providing  the  applicant  is 
otherwise  eligible,  the  applicant  will  be  entitled  to 
supplemental prdmotion consideration commencing with cycle 9537. 

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 that the 
rater would have to explain the unfavorable situation he was  in 
when this report was written in order to explain why the report 
is unjust.  He states that the rater hasn't mellowed with time, 
he knows he rated him harshly.  He states that he tried to obtain 
statements  from  the  indorser  but  was  unable  to  do  so.  The 
indorser informed him that the incident automatically called for 
that rating, and to support him now would  indicate he was wrong 
at the time.  The incident required consideration when coming to 
a fair and accurate rating on the report.  The indorser did not 
seek  out  the  opinions  of  supervisors  in his  chain  of  command 
regarding  his  day-to-day  performance  before  reaching  this 
conclusion. 
He  ignored  achievement  and  potential  displayed 
throughout  the  entire  period,  and  the  fact  that  it  was  an 
isolated  event. 
If  he  had  been  a  mediocre  or  substandard 
performer  for all  or most  of  the  period  the  rating would  have 
been accurate.  That was not the case and a single incident was 
allowed  to  overshadow  a  year's  work  and  achievement. 
In 
reference to why he  did  not provide  a  rebuttal to the referral 
report, he states that he was embarrassed to be facing the issue 
again after working for six months to put it behind him.  He knew 
he  had breached  conduct and was not going to  argue the  matter. 
At  that  time, he  gave  no  thought  whatsoever  to  the  impact  the 
report  would  have  on  his  career  in  the  future.  He  was  not 
accustomed to being  in that  type of  situation and  was  eager to 
put  the matter  to rest.  He  states that  the  indorser validated 
the  report  without  consulting  other  supervisors.  He  and  the 
rater  focused  only  on  the  incident.  The  indorser's  knowledge 
that  he  had  an  incident of  misconduct  is not  sufficient, well 
rounded knowledge  to  render a  fair overall performance  rating, 
In  reference  to  his 
whether  he  believed  it  was  or  not. 
supervisor  being  biased,  he  states  that  the  alcohol  related 
incident  was  a  breach  of  conduct  that  was  dealt  with  by  his 
commander.  His  punishment  was  compounded  due  to  his  rater's 
mismanagement practices coming into light at the same time.  The 
indorser wanted the rater to raise his standards and demonstrate 
zero tolerance for misperformance.  Fairness and objectivity were 
not  foremost  in  mind  when  the  report  was  written, not  by  the 
rater or  the  indorser.  He  states again, that  his  performance 

4 

98 -0057 5 

prior to, and after the incident was not given due consideration 
in determining his overall  rating.  Instead, over  emphasis was 
placed on an isolated incident.  He states that the intent of his 
appeal is not to corrupt the Enlisted Evaluation System or to do 
an injustice to other hardworking NCOs.  The intent of his appeal 
is to identify an inaccurate performance report, which contains 
such  an  erroneous  overall  rating  that  untrue  statements  were 
needed and used to justify the rating. 

Applicant's compJ.ete response is attached at Exhibit F. 

THE BOARD  CONCLUDES THAT: 
1.  The  applicant  has  exhausted  all  remedies  provided  by 
existing law or regulations. 

2.  The application was timely filed. 

3.  Insufficient  relevant  evidence  has  been  presented  to 
demonstrate the existence of probable error or injustice.  The 
applicant  contends  there  are  circumstances  surrounding  the 
contested  report  that  demonstrate  the  overall  promotion 
recommendation  is  biased,  focusing  only  on  an  isolated 
incident for which he received an LOR.  However, based on the 
evidence  of  record, we  are  not  persuaded  that  the  contested 
report is an inaccurate assessment of  the applicant's  overall 
performance  during  the  period  in  question.  The  applicant's 
contention that his supervisor did not adhere to the standards 
by which he was rated is irrelevant.  The commander obviously 
considered drinking alcohol and not reporting for duty to be a 
serious  offense  worthy  of  reproof.  The  statement  from  the 
rater is noted; however, it does not cite specific examples of 
the conflict or bias.  After reviewing the evidence submitted 
with  this appeal, we believe that the applicant has failed to 
provide sufficient evidence showing that  the contested report 
is in error or unjust.  Therefore, in the absence of evidence 
to  the  contrary,  we  find  no  compelling  basis  to  recommend 
granting the relief sought in this application. 

- 

THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: 

The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not 
demonstrate  the  existence  of  probable  material  error  or 
injustice; that the application was denied without a personal 
appearance; and that the application will only be reconsidered 
upon the submission of newly discovered relevant evidence not 
considered with this application. 

5 

. 

98-0057 5 

The following members of the Board considered this application 
in Executive Session on 16 June 1 9 9 8 ,   under the provisions of 
AFI 

3 6 - 2 6 0 3  : 

Mr. David W. Mulgrew, Panel Chair 
Mr. Joseph G. Diamond, Member 
Mr. Frederick R. Beaman 111, Member 
Ms. Phyllis L. Spence, Examiner  (without vote) 

The 

following documentary evidence was considered: 

Exhibit A. DD Form 1 4 9 ,   dated 19 Feb 98,  w/atchs. 
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. 
Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPPPAB, dated 12 Mar 98,  w/atchs. 
Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/DPPPWB, dated 3  Mar 9 8 .  
Exhibit E. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 10 Mar 9 8 .  
Exhibit F. Letter, Applicant, dated 2 5   Mar 9 8 .  

DAVID W. MULGREW 
Panel Chair 

6