RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  98-00968
            INDEX CODE:  111.02

            COUNSEL:  None

            HEARING DESIRED:  No


_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

The Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) rendered for the  period  31 Oct
95 through 1 Jul 96 be declared void and removed from his records.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The basis for the final rating on the report in question was a  Social
Actions event of which he was exonerated  of  any  wrong  doing.   The
acting commander was the Military Personnel Flight  (MPF)  chief,  who
along with the Superintendent  of  the  MPF,  gave  him  a  Letter  of
Reprimand (LOR) based upon the action and directly told the rater that
under no circumstances would he be allowed a “5” rating  as  it  would
not reflect positively on her (rater) as a supervisor and team  member
in supporting their actions.  Despite her  efforts  to  push  the  “5”
through, she was hindered by implied threats to her career and ability
to supervise.

Applicant’s complete submission is attached at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant’s Total Active Federal Military Service Date (TAFMSD) is
11 Jul 79.  He is currently serving in the Regular Air  Force  in  the
grade of master sergeant, effective, and with a date of rank (DOR)  of
1 Aug 98.






Applicant’s EPR profile since 1985 follows:

            PERIOD ENDING          OVERALL EVALUATION

               4 Aug 85                    9
               4 Aug 86                    9
              31 May 87                    9
              31 May 88                    9
              31 May 89                    9
              30 Nov 89                    9
              30 Nov 90                    4 (New rating system)
              30 Nov 91                    5
               8 May 92                    4
               8 May 93                    5
               3 Apr 94                    4
               3 Apr 95                    5
              30 Oct 95                    4
             * 1 Jul 96                    4
              10 Mar 97                    5
              15 Aug 97                    5
              26 Dec 97                    5

     *  Contested report.

The applicant filed a similar appeal  under  AFI  36-2401,  Correcting
Officer and Enlisted Evaluation  Reports,  which  was  denied  by  the
Evaluation Reports Appeal Board (ERAB) on 16 Jan 98.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The  Chief,  Inquiries/AFBCMR  Section,  AFPC/DPPPWB,  reviewed   this
application  and  indicated  that,  the  first  time  the  report  was
considered in the promotion process was cycle 97E7 to master  sergeant
(promotions effective Aug 97 - Jul 98).  Should  the  Board  void  the
report in its entirety, or upgrade the overall rating, providing he is
otherwise eligible, the applicant will  be  entitled  to  supplemental
promotion consideration beginning with cycle 97E7.  However,  he  will
not become a selectee during  this  cycle  if  the  Board  grants  the
request.  He has been tentatively selected for  promotion  during  the
initial selection process for the 98E7 cycle pending a favorable  data
verification and the recommendation of the  commander.   His  DOR  and
effective date will be  1 Aug  98.   Since  he  has  been  tentatively
selected for the 98E7 cycle, it  would  serve  no  useful  purpose  to
provide him supplemental consideration for the 97E7 cycle as he  could
not be selected.

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

The Chief,  BCMR  &  SSB  Section,  AFPC/DPPPAB,  also  reviewed  this
application and indicated that, 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.  While the applicant provided  two  letters
from his rater who claims that she was coerced by  her  superiors  and
changed her evaluation of the applicant’s duty performance from a  “5”
to a “4” rating in Section IV (Promotion Recommendation), AFI 36-2403,
paragraph 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 of this
nature, DPPPAB determined it was the  rater’s  choice  to  change  the
rating from a “5” to a “4” rating.  Further, since both the  applicant
and his rater are considered “experts” on  the  governing  regulation,
AFI 36-2402, there is no excuse for the rater changing the rating to a
“4” if her intention was to give the applicant a “5” rating.

Evaluators who change their evaluations after talking with a  superior
but before the report becomes a matter of record have not  necessarily
been coerced.  The rater makes conflicting statements in her 17 Nov 97
letter.  First, she says she gave the applicant a “4”  rating  due  to
extreme  pressures  from  MPF  leadership  (paragraph 2).   Then,   in
paragraph 3, she states her decision to  render  the  “4”  rating  was
“severely swayed” by accusations of a  Social  Actions  incident  made
against the applicant.  Also, in paragraph 4, she readily  admits  the
applicant’s duty performance was “not perfect.”  If she truly believed
the applicant deserved a “5” rating in Section  IV  of  the  EPR,  she
could have rated him accordingly which was her choice.   As  evidenced
by her many contradictions, it appears that  she  was  not  thoroughly
convinced the applicant was ready  for  immediate  promotion  and  she
lowered her promotion assessment of  the  applicant  to  a  “4”  after
meeting with her superiors.  Since the applicant does not include  any
clear evidence to prove  his  rater’s  rating  rights  were  violated,
DPPPAB concludes she changed the report  willingly  and  that  it  was
accomplished in direct accordance with applicable regulations.

The applicant did not provide any information/support from  the  other
evaluators of the contested EPR.  In the absence of  information  from
evaluators, official substantiation of error  or  injustice  from  the
Inspector  General  (IG)  or  Social  Actions  is  appropriate.    The
applicant included a copy of a Social Actions complaint filed  against
him; therefore, the report  does  not  reveal  he  was  mistreated  by
members of his command.  It does state  that  he  was  not  guilty  of
discrimination and DPPPAB fails to see how their findings correlate to
the rating on his EPR.  They viewed the contested report  and  do  not
find any references to the Social Actions report, LOR, or the  alleged
racial slur.  Rather, they laud him for being a team  player,  a  hard
charging noncommissioned officer (NCO), and  cooperating  with  others
for the benefit of the organization.  The report does not reflect bias
on the part of his superiors.  Statements from the  indorser  and  the
reviewing  commander  which  explain  their  version  of  events   are
conspicuously missing from the application.  The  applicant  fails  to
realize or understand that, by virtue of human nature, an individual’s
self-assessment of performance is often somewhat “glorified”  compared
to an evaluator’s perspective because it is based  on  perceptions  of
self.  His report is  not  inaccurate  or  unfair  simply  because  he
believes it is, nor has the documentation submitted  convinced  DPPPAB
that there was any irregularity in  the  rendering  of  the  contested
report.

In Section VI (Indorser’s Comments), the applicant’s indorser mentions
the applicant prepared a guide for processing appeals that was  highly
requested by other bases.  DPPPAB would like to  point  out  that  the
applicant and his rater are both  personnel  technicians,  who  should
know  and  understand  the  importance   of   including   the   proper
documentation to support an appeal.  Based on  the  lack  of  evidence
provided, DPPPAB recommends denial of applicant’s request.

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

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Applicant reviewed the Air Force evaluations and provided  a  two-page
response (see 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.  We noted the statements
provided from the rater  of  the  contested  report.   However,  these
statements do not convince us that the applicant was rated unfairly or
that the report  is  in  error.   While  the  rater  states  that  the
evaluation was a result of direct pressure by  the  Superintendent  of
the MPF to lower the rating on the applicant  based  upon  an  alleged
Social  Actions  infraction,  there  is  no  substantiation  of   this
allegation from either the indorser or the commander  that  there  was
pressure put on the rater to downgrade the  report  in  question.   In
addition, we note that the rater  admits  that  the  applicant’s  duty
performance was “not perfect” and we do not find any bias on the  part
of applicant’s superiors on the  report  in  question.   We  therefore
agree with the recommendation of the Air Force and adopt the rationale
expressed as the basis for our decision that the applicant has  failed
to sustain his burden that he has  suffered  either  an  error  or  an
injustice.  In view of the foregoing, and in absence  of  evidence  to
the contrary, we find no compelling basis to  recommend  granting  the
relief sought.

_________________________________________________________________

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.

_________________________________________________________________

The following members of the  Board  considered  this  application  in
Executive Session on 4 March 1999, under the provisions of  Air  Force
Instruction 36-2603:

                  Mr. Douglas J. Heady, Panel Chair
                  Ms. Peggy E. Gordon, Member
                  Mr. Joseph A. Roj, Member
                Mrs. Joyce Earley, Examiner (without vote)

The following documentary evidence was considered:

     Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 2 Apr 98, w/atchs.
     Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
     Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPWB, dated 4 Jun 98.
     Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPAB, dated 8 Jun 98.
     Exhibit E.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 22 Jun 98.
     Exhibit F.  Letter fr applicant, dated 2 Jul 98.




                                   DOUGLAS J. HEADY
                                   Panel Chair