DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE 

WASHINGTON, DC 

DEC 0 8 1998 

M i c e  of the Assistant Secretary 

AFBCMR 98-007 16 

MEMORAND’iUM 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: 

itary records of the Department of the Air Force relating to- 
be corrected to show that: 

a.  The Enlisted Performance Report, AF Form 910, rendered for the period 22 October 
1990 through 2 1 October 199 1, be, and hereby is, declared void and removed fiom his records. 

b.  He was promoted to the grade of master sergeant, effective and with a date of rank of 

1 March 1993, rather than 1 September 1994. 

It is M 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 95E8, and the 
results forwarded to the Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records at the earliest 
practicable date so that all necessary and appropriate actions may be completed. 

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 individual 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 
promoti on. 

Air Force Review Boards Agency 

AIR FORCE BOARD FOR  CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

IN THE MATTER OF: 

DEC 0 8 1998 

DOCKET NUMBER:  98-00716 
COUNSEL:  None 
HEARING DESIRED:  No 

APPLICANT REOUESTS THAT: 
1.  The Enlisted Performance Report  (EPR) rendered for the period 
22 October  1990  through  21 October  1991  be  declared  void  and 
removed from his records. 

He be given supplemental promotion consideration to the grade 

2. 
of master sergeant for the 93A7 promotion cycle. 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 
The report is not an accurate assessment of his performance. The 
evaluators did not have first-hand knowledge of his performance 
and accomplishments. 
In support of  the appeal, applicant submits statements from the 
rater  and  indorser,  who  support  his  request,  and  from  the 
commander, who  does not.  Also  provided  are  copies of  his AFI 
36-2401  appeals  and  supporting  statements  from  individuals 
outside  his  rating  chain.  [Applicant  also 
a 
reaccomplished  report  covering  the  same  period;  however,  i t   i s  
unclear  whether  or  not  he  wants  i t   to  replace  the  contested 
report . I  
Applicant's complete submission is attached at Exhibit A. 

includes 

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 
Applicant was selected to the grade of master sergeant in cycle 
95A7, effective and with a date of rank of 1 September 1994. He 
currently has a projected retirement date of 1 November 1998. He 
would reach high year of tenure  (HYT) for his grade on 1 October 
2002  unless he is promoted to senior master sergeant. 
The  applicant's similar appeal under the provisions  of  AFI  36- 
2401 was considered and denied by  the Evaluation Reports Appeal 
Board  (ERAB) on 18 April  1996.  He had  originally appealed the 
contested  report  in  February  1994;  however,  it  was  returned 
without action due to lack of clear support. 

The contested EPR  has an overall rating of  11411 and four of  the 
seven performance factors are in the second highest category. The 
overall rating of the reaccomplished EPR included in this appeal 
has been upgraded to a  r1511 and all the performance  factors are 
now in the highest category.  However, signature in Section VII, 
Commander's Review, of the reaccomplished EPR is from a different 
individual than the one who signed the contested report. 
APR/EPR profile since 1988 reflects the following: 
OVERALL  EVALUATION 

PERIOD ENDING 
21 Oct 
21 Oct 
21 Oct 
*21 Oct 
16 Jun 
16 Jun 
16 Jun 
16 Jun 
16 Jun 
16 Jun 

8 8  
8 9  
90 
91 
92 
93 
94 
95 
96 
97 

(New System) 

9 
9 
4 
4 
5 
5 
5 
5 
5 
5 

*  Contested report. 

AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 
The  Chief,  Inquiries/AFBCMR  Section,  HQ  AFPC/DPPPWB,  reviewed 
this  application  and  states  that  should  the  Board  void  the 
contested report in its entirety or upgrade the overall rating, 
providing  the  applicant  is  otherwise  eligible,  he  will  be 
entitled to supplemental promotion consideration to the grade of 
master sergeant commencing with cycle 93A7 (promotions effective 
Aug  92-Jul 93) and he would become a selectee during this cycle 
pending  a  favorable  data  verification  and  the  commander's 
recommendation. 
A  complete copy of the evaluation is attached at Exhibit C. 
The  Chief, BCMR  &  SSB  Section, HQ  AFPC/DPPPAB,  reviewed  this 
application and outlines her rationale for denying this request. 
The author believes the appeal is a direct result of applicant's 
nonselection for promotion to master sergeant in the 93A7 cycle. 
There is nothing in this case that was not discoverable  [by the 
rating  chain]  at  the  time  the  contested  report  was  rendered. 
Further, the reviewer does not in any way support the applicant's 
contention that the report was inaccurate. If the EPR was unjust 
(and the author does not believe  it  is), why  did  the applicant 
not  address  the  report  before  it  became  a  matter  of  record? 
Applicant  provides  no  supporting  documentation  validating  his 
contention that he received no performance feedback. Regardless, 
lack of feedback does not invalidate any subsequent EPR.  - 

2 

98-007 16 

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

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 
Complete  copies of  the Air  Force evaluations were  forwarded to 
applicant  on  13  April  1998  for  review  and  response within  30 
no response has been  received by  this 
days. 
off ice. 

As-- of  this date, 

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.  The 
applicant provided  a reaccomplished EPR;  however, based  on his 
stated  request  on  the  DD  Form  149  and  the  fact  that  the 
reaccomplished EPR contains a different individual's signature in 
Section  VII,  we  believe  voiding,  rather  than  replacing,  the 
contested  report  is  the  appropriate  action. 
Although  the 
commander does not support the applicant s  appeal , the rater and 
indorser  believe  the  EPR  in  question  was  not  an  accurate 
evaluation  of  the  applicant's performance. We  are persuaded by 
their statements and therefore recommend that, in order to offset 
any  possibility  of  an  injustice,  the  contested  evaluation  be 
voided  from the applicant's records.  Since AFPC/DPPPWB  advised 
this would  result  in the applicant's being  selected for master 
sergeant by  cycle 93A7, rather than 95A7, we also recommend his 
effective date and date of rank to master sergeant be changed to 
1  March  1993,  and  he  be  given  supplemental  promotion 
consideration to  the grade  of  senior master  sergeant beginning 
with cycle 9538. 

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 22 October 1990 through 21 October 1991, be declared 
void and removed from his records. 

3 

98-007 16 

b.  He  was  promoted  to  the  grade  of  master  sergeant, 
effective  and  with  a date  of  rank  of  1 March  1993,  rather  than 
1 September 1994. 
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  9538, and  the 
results forwarded to the Air Force Board for Correction of Military 
Records at the earliest practicable date so that all necessary and 
appropriate actions may be completed. 
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  individual  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. 

The following members of the Board considered this application in 
Executive Session on 22 October 1998, under the provisions of AFI 
36-2603 : 

Ms. Martha Maust, Panel Chair 
Mr. Kenneth L. Reinertson, Member 
Mr. William M. Edwards, Member 

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

Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 6 Mar 98, w/atchs. 
Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records. 
Exhibit C.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPPWB, dated 23 Mar 98. 
Exhibit D.  Letter,.HQ AFPC/DPPPAB, dated 31 Mar 98. 
Exhibit E.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 13 Apr 98. 

THA MAUST 
Panel Chair 

4 

98-007 16