DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE 

WASHINGTON, DC 

Office of the Assistant Secretary 

AFBCMR 98-0 1634 

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: 

ry records of the Department of the Air Force relating to 
corrected to show that the Enlisted Performance Report, 
17 July 1993 through 24 June  1995. was amended to reflect a “5” 

rating in Section IV, Promotion Recommendation, by the rater and the indorser. 

It is further directed that applicant be provided supplemental consideration for promotion 

to the grade of technical sergeant for all appropriate cycles beginning with cycle 97E6. 

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. 

V 

Air Force Review Boards Agency 

AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY R 

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

IN THE MATTER OF: 

DOCKET NUMBER:  9 8 - 0 1 6 3 4  
COUNSEL:  NONE 

HEARING DESIRED:  NO 

APPLICANT REOUESTS THAT: 

The  Enlisted  Performance  Report  (EPR) rendered  for  the  period 
1 7   July 1 9 9 3   through 2 4   June 1 9 9 5   be upgraded from a ’4”  to a ‘5” 
in Section IV, Promotion Recommendation. 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 
The “4’l  rating was given due to a single incident over a two year 
period. 
His  rater  and  indorser  at  the  time  felt  they  were 
coerced in giving the “4”  rating. 
In support of the appeal, applicant submits a personal statement; 
statements from the rater and the indorser which states they feel 
that  applicant’s EPR  should  be  upgraded  to  a  5  because  the  4 
rating  was  based  on  a  single  incident  and  a  non-regulation 
hospital rule.  If not for the hospital’s policy, he would have 
been given a 5;  and, a statement from an individual outside the 
rating chain. 

Applicant’s complete submission is attached at Exhibit A 

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 

The applicant is currently serving in  the Regular Air  Force  in 
the grade of staff sergeant. 
The  applicant  filed  two  similar  appeals  under  AFI  3 6 - 2 4 0 1 ,  
Correcting Officer  and  Enlisted  Evaluation Reports, which  were 
denied by the Evaluation Reports Appeal Board  (ERAB). 

EPR profile since 1 9 9 1  reflects the following: 

PERIOD ENDING 

EVALUATION OF POTENTIAL 

3 0   Dec 9 1  
3 0   Dec 92 
1 6   Jul 93 

4 
4 
4 

98-01634 

4 
5 
4 
5 

*24 Jun 95 
24 Jun 96 
28 Mar 97 
28 Mar 98 

*  Contested report. 

AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

The  Chief,  BCMR  and  SSB  Section,  AFPC/DPPPAB,  reviewed  this 
application  and  states  that  Air  Force  policy  is  that  an 
evaluation report is accurate as written when it becomes a matter 
of record.  They also point out, the first sergeant, whose policy 
the  applicant  and  his  raters  claim  influenced  their promotion 
recommendation, was not  an official member of  the rating chain. 
He was  required by directive to review the applicant's personal 
information file  (PIF), and report any derogatory information or 
quality control factors  (occurring during  the  reporting period) 
to  the  applicant's  rating  chain.  They  state,  evaluators  who 
change their evaluations after talking with a first sergeant but 
before the report becomes a matter of record have not necessarily 
been coerced.  Instead, they may have simply been made aware of 
disqualifying factors.  They further state that it is obvious, by 
their lack of willingness to got to bat  for him at the time the 
report was  rendered, they were  not  convinced he  deserved a  "5" 
promotion  recommendation.  Had  the  evaluators  been  thoroughly 
convinced the applicant was  ready  for immediate promotion, it's 
not likely they would have lowered their promotion assessment of 
the  applicant  to  a  \'4''  after  meeting  with  the  first  sergeant. 
Since the applicant does not include any clear evidence to prove 
his  rater's  or  indorser's  rating  rights  were  violated,  they 
conclude the rater and indorser changed the report willingly, and 
the  EPR  was  accomplished  in  direct  accordance  with  applicable 
regulations. 
They  further  state,  every  military  member  is 
briefed  about  proper  storage  of  firearms  when  they  in-process 
each  military  installation.  The  applicant  used  poor  judgment 
when  he  left  his  firearm  stored  in  a  locked  suitcase  in  his 
locker in his dormitory  room and  received an Article  15.  They 
find it interesting, the applicant did not believe the report was 
unjust  for over two years.  Then, after he  was nonselected  for 
promotion  to  the  grade  of  technical sergeant, he  realized that 
had  he  receive a  " 5 "   rating on  the  contested report, he  would 
have  been  a  promotion  selectee.  However,  the  report  is  not 
unjust or erroneous simply because he believes it is.  Therefore, 
based  on  the  evidence  provided,  they  recommend  denial  of 
applicant's request. 

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

The  Chief, Inquiries/AFBCMR Section, AFPC/DPPPWB, also  reviewed 
this  application  and  states  that  should  the  Board  void  the 
contested report in its entirety, upgrade the overall rating, or 

2 

make  any  other  signi  cant  change, providing  the  applicant  is 
otherwise  eligible,  the  applicant  will  be  entitled  to 
supplemental promotion consideration commencing with cycle 9636. 

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

98-01634 

APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

On  13  July  1998,  copies  of  the  Air  Force  evaluations  were 
forwarded to  applicant  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 
laws or regulations. 

2.  The application was timely filed. 

Sufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate 
3. 
the existence of  probable  error or  injustice.  Applicant  contends 
the  ‘4“  rating was given due to a single incident over a two-year 
period.  His rater and indorser at the time felt they were coerced 
into  giving  the  “4” rating.  Statements  from  the  rater  and  the 
indorser  have  been  provided  and  indicate  that  they  feel  the 
applicant‘s EPR  should be  upgraded  to  a  “5“  rating because  the  4 
rating was based on a single incident and a non-regulation hospital 
rule.  In view  of  the  foregoing, and  in  an  effort  to  offset  any 
possibility of an injustice, we believe the contested EPR should be 
upgraded  from  a  “4,‘ to  a  “ 5 “ .  
In  addition, we  recommend  he  be 
provided  supplemental promotion  consideration for all  appropriate 
cycles beginning with cycle 9736. 

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  910,  rendered  for the period  17 July 
1993 through 24 June 1995, was amended to reflect a  “ 5 “   rating in 
Section  IV,  Promotion  Recommendation,  by  the  rater  and  the 
indorser. 

It  is  further recommended that  applicant be  provided  supplemental 
consideration for promotion to the grade of technical sergeant for 
all appropriate cycles beginning with cycle 9736. 

If  AFPC  discovers  any  adverse  factors  during  or  subsequent  to 
supplemental  consideration  that  are  separate  and  apart,  and 

3 

98-01634 

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 October 1998, under the provisions of AFI 
3 6 - 2 6 0 3 :  

Mr. Robert D. Stuart, Panel Chair 
Mr. Henry Romo, Jr. ,  Member 
Mr. Richard A. Peterson, Member 
Ms. Phyllis L. Spence, Examiner  (without vote) 

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

The 

Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 1 Jan 98, w/atchs. 
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. 
Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPPPAB, dated 26 Jun 9 8 ,   w/atchs. 
Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/DPPPWB, dated 2 2   Jun 98. 
Exhibit E. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 1 3   Jul 98. 

ROBERT D. STUART 
Panel Chair 

4 

DEPARTMENT O F  THE A I R   FORCE 

H E A D Q U A R T E R S  AIR  FORCE P E R S O N N E L C E N T E R  

R A N D O L P H  AIR  FORCE  B A S E  T E X A S  

MEMORANDUM FOR  AFPC/DPPPAB 

AFBCMR 

FROM:  HQ AFPCIDPPPWB 

550 C Street West, Ste 9 
Randolph AFB TX 78 150-47 1 1 

SUBJECT:  Application for Correction of Military Records 

b 

Requested Action.  The applicant is requesting the AFBCMR replace his Enlisted Performance 
Report (EPR) closing 24 Jun 95 with an upgraded EPR.  We will address the supplemental 
promotion consideration issue should the request be approved. 

Reason for Request.  Applicant believes the 4 rating was given due to a single incident and that 
his rater and endorser felt they were coerced in giving the 4 rating. 

Facts.  See AFPUDPPPAB Ltr. 

Discussion.  The first time the report was considered in the promotion process was  Cycle 96E6 
to technical sergeant (promotions effective Aug 96 - Jul97).  Should the AFBCMR  void the 
contested reports in their entirety, or upgrade the overall rating, providing he is otherwise 
eligible, the applicant will be entitled to supplemental promotion consideration beginning with 
cycle 96E6.  The applicant will not  become a select during cycle 96E6 if the AFBCMR grants 
the request but would become a select for the 97E6 cycle pending a favorable data verification 
and the recommendation of the commander. 

Recommendation.  We defer to the recommendation of AFPCDPPPAB. 

TOKE R. MERRITT 
Chief, InquiriedAFBCMR Section 
Enlisted Promotion  & Mil Testing Br 

A 

D E P A R T M E N T  O F  THE  A I R   F O R C E  

H E A D Q U A R T E R S   AIR  F O R C E   P E R S O N N E L C E N T E R  

MEMORANDUM FOR  AFBCMR 

FR0M:HQ AFPClDPPPAB 

550 C Street West, Suite 8 
Randolph AFB TX  78 150-47 I O  

SUBJECT: 

Requested Action.  The applicant requests the Board upgrade his 24 Jun 95 enlisted performance 

report (EPR) to a “5” in Section IV, Promotion Recommendation. 

Basis for Request.  The applicant contends the rater and indorser of the contested report were 
coerced into changing their promotion recommendation from a “5” to a “4” in Section IV.  He also 
contends an unwritten policy existed in his unit during the contested reporting period that precluded 
recipients of Articles 15 from receiving a “5”  promotion recommendation. 

Recommendation.  Deny. 

Facts and Comments. 

a.  The application is timely.  The applicant filed two similar appeals under AFI 36-2401, 

Correcting Officer and Enlisted Evaluation Reports, which were denied by the Evaluation Reports 
Appeal Board (ERAB).  Copies of the ERAB’s 30 Sep 97 and 3 1 Mar 98 decision memorandums are 
included with this advisory. 

b.  AFI 36-2403, The Enlisted Evaluation System, 15 Jul 94, is the governing directive. 

c.  In support of his appeal, the applicant submits a copy of an AF Form 948, Application 

for Correctioflemoval of Evaluation Reports; a copy of the 24 Jun 95 EPR; a copy of a revised 
version of the 24 Jun 95 report; memorandums from his rater and indorser; a personal brief; and a 
memorandum from outside the rating chain. 

d.  The applicant and his rating chain contend they were coerced into changing their 
intended promotion recommendation in Section IV, from a “5” to a “4” based on an “unwritten 
policy” in effect at the time.  Air Force policy is that an evaluation report is accurate as written when 
it becomes a matter of  record.  To effectively challenge an EPR, it is necessary to hear from all the 
members of the rating chain-not  only for support, but for clarification/explanation. AFI 36-2403, 
para 4.6, charges a rater with choosing the block that best describes the ratee’s promotion potential. 
The indorsers of the report are required to either concur or nonconcur with the rater’s promotion 
recommendation.  If they concur, they simply mark the concur block.  However, if they nonconcur, 
they are required to mark the nonconcur block and initial the block with which they agree.  Since 
there are provisions in place to properly handle discrepancies between members of the rating chain, 
we determine it was the rater’s and indorser’s choice to change their ratings from a “5” to a “4.” 

e.  We would also like to point out to the Board, the first sergeant, whose policy the 
applicant and his raters claim influenced their promotion recommendation, was not an official 
member of the rating chain.  Rather, he was required by directive to review the applicant’s personal 
information file (PIF), and report any derogatory information or quality control factors (occurring 
during the reporting period) to the applicant’s rating chain.  Evaluators who change their evaluations 
after talking with a first sergeant but before the report becomes a matter of record have not 
necessarily been coerced.  Instead, they may have simply been made aware of disqualifjling factors. 
It is obvious, by their lack of willingness to “go to bat” for him at the time the report was rendered, 
they were not convinced he deserved a “5” promotion recommendation.  It is not uncommon for 
raters to soften their opinions of an applicant’s duty performance in retrospect, as memories fade over 
time.  Had the evaluators been thoroughly convinced the applicant was ready for immediate 
promotion (“5”)  it is not likely they would have lowered their promotion assessment of the applicant 
to a “4”  (Ready) after meeting with the first sergeant.  Since the applicant does not include any clear 
evidence to prove his rater’s or indorser’s rating rights were violated, we conclude and they admit, 
they changed the report willingly, and the EPR was accomplished in direct accordance with 
applicable regulations. 

f.  Every military member is briefed about proper storage of firearms when they in-process 

each military installation.  The applicant used poor judgment when he left his firearm stored in a 
locked suitcase, in his locker, in his dormitory room and received an Article 15.  We find it 
interesting, the applicant did not believe the report was unjust for over two years.  Then, after he was 
nonselected for promotion to the grade of technical sergeant (TSgt), he realized that had he received a 
“5” rating on the contested EPR, he would have been a promotion selectee.  We understand the 
applicant’s desire to have the report removed because of the promotion advantage.  However, the 
report is not unjust or erroneous simply because he believes it is. 

Summary.  Based on the lack of evidence provided, our recommendation of denial is 

appropriate. 

Chief, BCMR and SSB Section 
Directorate of Pers Program Mgt 

Attachments: 
1.  HQ AFPCDPPPAE Ltr, 30 Sep 97 
2.  HQ AFPCDPPPAE Ltr, 3 1 Mar 98 

MEMORANDUM FOR 60 MSSDPMPE 
FROM:  HQ AFPCDPPPAE 

550 C Street West,  Ste 8 
Randolph AFB, TX 78150-4710 

SUBJECT:  AFI 36-2401 Decision 
Report Closing:  24 Jun 

3  1 MAR  1998 

The Evaluation Reports Appeal Board ( E M )  denied the attached appeal application. 
The Board considers an evaluation report to be an accurate assessment when rendered; therefore, 
substantial evidence is required to challenge a report’s accuracy.  As you are aware, the Military 
eir application submitted 
Personnel Flight is responsible for providing members 
under AFI 36-2401.  As such, to assist you in counse 
this memorandum provides 
our assessment of the application. 

The Board wasn’t convinced b 

cumentation.  The additional 

documentation he has submitted still 
by this “policy” regarding individuals who received an Article 15 (or that it ever existed). 
Evaluators who change their evaluations after talking with a superior have not necessarily been 
coerced.  Clem evidence must exist proving that the superior violated the evaluator’s rating 
rights.  Supporting statements must idente the person who did the coercing, list the specific 
e the incident.  The fact 
threats that were made, and idente any witn 
dividuals receiving an 
that the First Sergeant may have told the rater 

e rating chain was coerced 

eceive a “5” ratin 

erced into changing any ratings. 

e a “4” rating with the 

s strongly suggests they were satisfied with 

the rating they elected to give at that time (especially since they didn’t challenge this hospital 
“policy”).  A willingness by evaluators to change or void a report isn’t a valid basis for doing so 
unless there is also clear evidence of error or injustice being involved, nor are retrospective views 
of how a report may affect 
30 Sep 97 memorandum, perhap 
requests the results be forwarded to our office for review in accordance with AFI 36-2401, 
paragraph 3.4.3. 

ies.  Again, as we recommended in our 
ould request an IG inquiry into this “policy” and 

M e r  counseling, please provide 

,with a copy of this memorandum 

announcing the Board’s decision.  He may gather new material evidence and reapply under AFI 
36-2401, but the original documentation should be included with the new application.  While we 
cannot guarantee a favorable decision will result, we will ensure the case is processed as fast as 
possible.  Another avenue available is to appeaI under AFI 36-2603 to the Air Force Board for 

Correction of Military Records.  If you have any questions or concerns, pIease contact 
MSgt Mike Williams, HQ AFPClDPPPAE, at DSN: 487-561 1. 

2 

SIGNED 

ANN M. LACEY, CMSgt, USAF 
Chief, Evaluation Reports Appeals Section 
Directorate of Pers Prgm Mgt 

MEMORANDUM FOR  60 MSS/DPMPE 
FROM:  HQ AFPCDPPPAE 

550 C Street West, Ste 8 
Randolph AFB, TX  78 150-47 10 

SUBJECT:  AFI 36-240 1 Decision: 

Report Closing:  24 Jun 95 

3 0  SEP  E l 7  

The Evaluation Reports Appeal Board ( E M )  denied the attached appeal application. 

The Board considers a$ evaluation report to be an accurate assessment when rendered; therefore, 
substantial evidence is required to challenge a report’s accuracy.  As you are aware, the Military 
Personnel Flight is responsible for providing members counseling on their application submitted 
under AFI 36-2401.  As such, to assist you in counseling the applicant, this memorandum 
provides our assessment of the application. 

documentation.  While the 

We believe the Board wasn’t convince 
rating chain supports the request, the rational 
wasn’t known when the contested report was render 
received an Article 15 during the reporting p 
rating chain felt obliged to submit a “4” (although they felt he deserved a “5”).  No substantial 
olicy ever existed or that the rating chain 
proof, however, has been s 
and the rest of the rating chain, willing to 
was coerced by this “poli 
years after the report was rendered), but 
fight the “policy” and giv 
der’s “unwritten policy”?  If so, why is 
not willing to do so at th 
hdshe now willing to upgrade the report?  If not, exactly who’s policy was it so that it can be 
substantiated?  Specific information is required fr 
who can substantiate such a policy ever existed. 
impacted the ratings of those in his rating chain, p 
request the results be forwarded to our office in accordance with AFI 36-2401, paragraph 3.4.3. 
A willingness by evaluators to change or void a report isn’t a valid basis for doing so unless there 
is also clear evidence of error or injustice being involved. 

ating chain, as well as anyone 
eIs such a policy may have 
Id request in IG inquiry and 

After counseling, please provid 

ith a copy of this memorandum 

announcing the Board’s decision.  He may gather new material evidence and reapply under AFI 
36-2401, but the original documentation should be included with the new application.  While we 
cannot guarantee a favorable decision will result fiom the additional evidence submitted by the 
member, we will ensure the case is processed as fast as possible.  Another avenue available to the 

applicant is to appeal under MI 36-2603 to the Air Force Board for Correction of Military 
Records. 

2 

SIGNED 

ANN M. LACEY, CMSgt, USAF 
Chief, Evaluation Reports Appeals Section 
Directorate of Pers Prgm Mgt