RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  98-01069
            INDEX NUMBER:  111.02; 111.05
            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

The Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) closing 1 June 1997  be  removed
from his record and a reaccomplished  report  be  substituted  in  its
place.

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The report should have closed out at a higher level  and  should  have
had a senior rater indorsement.

When the contested report was first drafted,  it  contained  a  senior
rater endorsement.  However, after  it  was  reviewed  by  the  Senior
Enlisted Advisor, it was sent back to the rater in late July or  early
August for additional information.

When he returned from leave, he was informed that  the  EPR  had  been
stopped at group level.  The rater told him the report came back  from
the wing because it needed additional information.   She  also  stated
that she did not have any additional information and thus  decided  to
close the EPR out at group level.  While on leave, he had  called  the
squadron several times and at  no  time  was  there  any  request  for
additional information.

In support of his request, applicant provided his personal  statement,
copies of the  contested  report  and  a  reaccomplished  report,  and
statements submitted in his behalf from the rater and  rater’s  rater.
(Exhibit A)

___________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Information extracted from the Personnel Data  System  (PDS)  reflects
applicant’s Total Active Federal Military Service Date (TAFMSD) as  24
March 1978.  He is currently serving on active duty in  the  grade  of
master sergeant.




Applicant’s APR/EPR profile, as reflected in the PDS, follows:


       PERIOD CLOSING  OVERALL EVALUATION

         31 Dec 87     9
         31 Dec 88     9
         31 Dec 89     9
         31 Dec 89 (EPR)     5
          8 Nov 91     5
          8 Nov 92     5
          8 Nov 93     5
          8 Nov 94     5
          1 Jun 95     5
          1 Jun 96     5
   *      1 Jun 97     5
          1 Jun 98     5

* Contested report.  A similar appeal submitted under  the  provisions
of AFI 36-2401 was denied  by  the  Evaluation  Reports  Appeal  Board
(ERAB) on 13 January 1998.

___________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The  Enlisted  Promotion  &  Military  Testing  Branch,   AFPC/DPPPWB,
provided comments  addressing  supplemental  promotion  consideration.
Should the Board grant applicant’s request, providing he is  otherwise
eligible, he will be entitled to supplemental promotion  consideration
to the grade of senior master  sergeant  beginning  with  cycle  98E8.
(Exhibit C)

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

DPPPAB stated that, apparently, the report was returned to applicant’s
unit for “beefing up” in August because it was  too  weak  for  higher
level indorsement.  Although the applicant was on leave, the commander
could have contacted him (especially if he was checking  in  with  the
orderly room routinely) to obtain additional information to add to the
report, if she truly believed he warranted a higher level endorsement.
Apparently, the rater chose not  to  contact  him  and  with  a  clear
conscience, submitted the EPR for closeout at  the  group  commander’s
level.  While the evaluators of the report decided  in  early  October
(after much discussion) that  his  performance  during  the  reporting
period warranted a higher level endorsement, DPPPAB did not agree.  It
is evident to them, the information on which they based their decision
to change the report, should have been available to them at  the  time
the report was rendered.  DPPPAB questions what was the evidence  that
finally caused them to change their minds and what took them  so  long
to find it.

DPPPAB did not agree with applicant’s contentions  that  the  EPR  was
erroneously filed in his selection folder at HQ AFPC.  Other than  his
own word, he has failed  to  provide  any  official  documentation  to
substantiate a phone call was ever made to request the EPR be held  at
HQ AFPC/DPPBR3 pending a rewrite.   It  is  apparent  the  report  was
processed late, but otherwise, it was  processed  in  accordance  with
appropriate regulations.

DPPPAB noted that when a military personnel flight (MPF)  contacts  HQ
AFPC/DPPBR3  and  requests  a  report  be  either  held,  returned  or
destroyed, personnel at  HQ  AFPC/DPPBR3  first  check  the  Promotion
Documents  and  Retrieval  Tracking  System  (PRoDaRTs)  database   to
determine if the report has been received.  If it has not,  they  edit
the PRoDaRTs database while the MPF representative or other authorized
customer is on the phone.  This edit causes a “Stop Flag” to appear on
the screen when the record is called up.  When reports arrive for file
at HQ AFPC/DPPBR3, the record is first called up in PRoDaRTs to record
its receipt, and if a “Stop Flag” appears, the report is either  held,
returned to the MPF, or destroyed  (as  per  MPF  instruction  on  the
screen), rather than filed in the selection folder.  The  “Stop  Flag”
remains in the database until the action is complete.   Apparently  no
such phone call or edit to the database was made since the report  was
logged in on 10 Oct, only four days after the alleged phone call  took
place.  The report was filed in the applicant’s  selection  folder  on
21 Oct 97, three days prior to the date the Staff  Summary  Sheet  and
reaccomplished EPR were submitted to the wing commander for signature.

The complete evaluation is at Exhibit D.

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Applicant provided a supporting statement from his commander,  who  is
also the indorser on the proposed reaccomplished report.  (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.  Sufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the
existence of probable error or injustice.  After careful consideration
of the  applicant’s  complete  submission,  including  the  supporting
statements from the members of applicant’s rating  chain,  we  believe
some doubt exists as to the accuracy and  fairness  of  the  contested
report.  The rater’s rater indicated that the senior rater endorsement
was well justified but due to his oversight  it  was  not  done.   The
commander, who is also the  indorser  on  the  reaccomplished  report,
stated the applicant is an outstanding  NCO  and  a  remarkable  first
sergeant, that hindsight reveals that  a  mistake  was  made  and  the
applicant should not  be  penalized  for  it.   Having  no  reason  to
question the opinions in the supporting  statements,  we  believe  any
doubt should be resolved in the applicant’s favor  and  the  contested
report should be replaced with the reaccomplished report.   The  board
further  recommends  that  the  applicant  be  provided   supplemental
promotion consideration for  all  appropriate  cycles  for  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  Senior  Enlisted
Performance Report (MSgt thru CMSgt), AF Form 911,  rendered  for  the
period 2 June 1996 through 1 June  1997,  reflecting  “Senior  Rater’s
Deputy” in Section VIII (Final Evaluator’s Position), be declared void
and removed from his records  and  that  the  attached  reaccomplished
report reflecting “Senior Rater” in Section  VIII  (Final  Evaluator’s
Position) be accepted for file in its place.

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 98E8.

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 qualifications 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 he was promoted to the  higher
grade on the date of rank established by  the  supplemental  promotion
and that he 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 6 October 1998, under the provisions of  AFI  36-
2603:

      Mr. Michael P. Higgins, Panel Chair
      Mr. Steven A. Shaw, Member
      Ms. Ann L. Heidig, Member

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

     Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 10 Apr 98, w/atchs.
     Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
     Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPWB, dated 28 Apr 98.
     Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPAB, dated 8 May 98, w/atchs.
     Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 18 May 98.
     Exhibit F.  Letter from 5BW/CC, dated 19 Jun 98.




                                   MICHAEL P. HIGGINS
                                   Panel Chair



AFBCMR 98-01069




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 the Senior
Enlisted Performance Report (MSgt thru CMSgt), AF Form 911, rendered
for the period 2 June 1996 through 1 June 1997, reflecting “Senior
Rater’s Deputy” in Section VIII (Final Evaluator’s Position), be, and
hereby is, declared void and removed from his records and that the
attached reaccomplished report reflecting “Senior Rater” in Section
VIII (Final Evaluator’s Position) be accepted for file in its place.

      It is further directed that he be provided supplemental
consideration for promotion to the grade of senior master sergeant for
all appropriate cycles beginning with cycle 98E8.

      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 qualifications 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 he was promoted to the
higher grade on the date of rank established by the supplemental
promotion and that he is entitled to all pay, allowances, and benefits
of such grade as of that date.







            JOE G. LINEBERGER
            Director
            Air Force Review Boards Agency

Attachment:
AF Form 911