RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  98-00743
                 INDEX CODE:  111

                 COUNSEL:  NONE

                 HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

1.  The Enlisted Performance Report (EPR), for the period 9 March 1995
through 8 March 1996, be declared void and removed from his records.

2.  He receive supplemental promotion consideration for  promotion  to
the grade of Chief Master Sergeant (E-9) by the promotion cycle  97E9.


_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The rater of the EPR in question reprised against him  by  downgrading
his rating in section III,  Block  6,  Professional  Qualities,  as  a
result of his (applicant’s) cooperation with an investigation  of  his
rater conducted by the Air  Force  Office  of  Special  Investigations
(OSI).

In support of his appeal, applicant submits  a  copy  of  the  Summary
Report of Investigation by the Air Combat  Command  Inspector  General
and a copy of the contested EPR.

Applicant’s submission is attached at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

At the time the applicant submitted his application to the AFBCMR,  on
12 March 1998, he was serving in the Regular Air Force in the grade of
senior master sergeant (E-8).

In a Summary Report of Investigation (ROI), dated 2 February 1998, the
applicant brought a possible alcohol related incident cover-up to  the
attention  of  his  commander.   The  Air  Force  Office  of   Special
Investigations  (AFOSI)  investigated  the  matter.    The   applicant
participated as a witness in the AFOSI investigation where one of  the
subjects was the applicant’s rater, who was relieved of  his  position
and  removed  from  the  1st  Security  Police  Squadron  during   the
investigation.  (He was subsequently cleared  of  criminal  wrongdoing
and returned to  his  position).   The  applicant  alleged  his  rater
reprised against him by downgrading applicant’s rating in section III,
Block 6, Professional Qualities, on the  Enlisted  Performance  Report
(EPR) closing 8 March  1996.   It  was  subsequently  found  that  the
allegation  that  the  rater  reprised  against  the   applicant,   by
downgrading his rating on the contested EPR, was substantiated.

Application  under  AFI  36-2401,  Correcting  Officer  and   Enlisted
Evaluation  Reports  would  have  been   appropriate.    However,   HQ
AFPC/DPPPAB did not return  the  applicant’s  application  because  he
failed to provide the appropriate evaluator support.


Information obtained from the Personnel Data  System  (PDS)  indicates
that  the  applicant  applied  for  retirement  on  21 January   1998.
Applicant has since retired from the Regular  Air  Force  on  1 August
1998.  A request for applicant’s EPR file revealed there were  no  EPR
records filed at the National Personnel  Records  Center  as  of  this
date.  Therefore, an EPR profile could not be accomplished.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The Chief, Inquiries/AFBCMR Section,  Enlisted  Promotion  &  Military
Testing  Branch,  HQ  AFPC/DPPPWB,  states  that   the   Senior   Non-
commissioned Officer (NCO) Evaluation Board  for  the  97E9  promotion
cycle convened on  20  October  1997  and  promotion  selections  were
completed on 31 October 1997.  The applicant’s board score was 367.50.
 His total score was 618.13 and the score required  for  selection  in
his Air Force Specialty Code (AFSC) was 636.07.  The applicant  missed
promotion by 17.94 points.

Based on the applicant’s date of rank for senior master sergeant,  the
first time the  contested  report  was  considered  in  the  promotion
process was cycle 97E9 to chief master sergeant.  Should the BCMR void
the 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 97E9.

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

The Acting Chief, BCMR and SSB Section, HQ  AFPC/DPPPAB,  states  that
Air Force policy is that an evaluation report is accurate  as  written
when it becomes a matter of record.  It takes substantial evidence  to
the contrary to have a  report  changed  or  voided.   To  effectively
challenge an EPR, it is important to hear from all the  evaluators  on
the   contested    report—not    only    for    support,    but    for
clarification/explanation.   In  the  absence  of   information   from
evaluators, official substantiation of error  or  injustice  from  the
Inspector General (IG) or Social Actions is appropriate.

The summary IG report substantiates the  applicant’s  rater  committed
reprisal against him by downgrading his rating in Section III,  Block,
6, Professional Qualities.  However, the report does not implicate the
rest of the rating chain who all agreed with the rater’s assessment of
the applicant when they signed the contested  report.   The  applicant
failed to include any supporting documentation from the rater’s  rater
or indorser to confirm they would have changed their assessment of the
applicant’s duty performance for the contested reporting period  based
on the  findings  of  the  Report  of  Investigation  (ROI).   Without
statements from the rest of the rating chain, AFPC/DPPPAB is unable to
determine if reprisal was indeed a factor.  They recommend applicant’s
request be denied.

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

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on
4 May 1998 for review and response within 30 days.  As of  this  date,
no response has been received by this office.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

1.  The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by existing  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
evidence of record, we are persuaded there is sufficient doubt  as  to
whether the contested EPR is an accurate assessment of the applicant’s
performance during the time period in question.  In this  respect,  we
note that the  ROI  substantiates  that  the  rater  reprised  against
applicant by downgrading Block 6, Section III, Professional Qualities,
of the contested report as a result of applicant’s cooperation with an
investigation of the rater by the AFOSI.  Although the  applicant  has
not provided statements from the rater’s rater or the indorser of  the
contested report, we are convinced, that, on the basis of the ROI, the
rater’s objectivity in assessing applicant’s performance  was  clearly
biased as a result of the investigation.  In view of the foregoing, we
recommend the contested report  be  declared  void  and  removed  from
applicant’s  records  and  he  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 911, rendered for the period 9 March  1995
through 8 March 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 chief master sergeant  (E-
9) for all appropriate cycles beginning with cycle 97E9.

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 15 December 1998, under the provisions of AFI 36-
2603:

                  Ms. Martha Maust, Panel Chair
                  Mr. Frederick A. Beaman III, Member
              Ms. Patricia D. Vestal, Member

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

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 12 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 22 Apr 98.
   Exhibit E.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 4 May 98.




                                   MARTHA MAUST
                                   Panel Chair

INDEX CODE:  111

AFBCMR 98-00743




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 PHILLIP L. SUTTON SR., 311-74-0190, be corrected  to
show that the Enlisted Performance Report, AF Form 911,  rendered  for
the period 9 March 1995 through 8  March  1996,  be,  and  hereby  is,
declared void and removed from his records.

       It  is  further  directed  that  he  be  provided  supplemental
consideration for promotion to the grade of chief master sergeant  (E-
9) for all appropriate cycles beginning with cycle 97E9.

      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