RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  98-01126
            INDEX CODE:  111.01

            COUNSEL:  None

            HEARING DESIRED:  Yes


_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His Airman Performance Reports (APRs) rendered for the  period  26 Jun
87 through 16 May 88 and 17 May 88 through 7 Mar 89 be  declared  void
and removed from his record and he be granted  supplemental  promotion
consideration.


_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

On the APR closing 16 May 88, the reduction of his executive  ability,
from 9 to 8, was based on erroneous  assessment  of  his  performance.
The rater and first indorser failed to consider all factors concerning
him and Air Force policy in effect at that time.  The  downgrading  in
Part III (Evaluation of Performance) is not  compatible  with  Part  V
(Rater’s Comments) in the Facts and Specific Achievements  area.   The
rater’s  comments  under  the   heading   “Recommended   Improvements”
contradicts  statements  he  made   in   the   “Facts   and   Specific
Achievements” section.   The  rater’s  comments  in  “Other  Comments”
concerning weight were also contrary to Air  Force  regulations.   The
negative  comments  placed  in  this  report   are   devastating   and
irreparable toward the career potential of any Senior  noncommissioned
officer (NCO).  The indorsing officials failed to  review  the  rating
and comments for completeness  and  impartiality.   Subsequently,  the
second indorser/commander, once apprised of this  situation,  strongly
recommend removal of the APRs.

A review of the APR closing 7 Mar  89  indicates  that  the  dates  of
supervision for the  rater  on  this  report  were  exactly  120  days
starting in Nov 88.  He was  first  assigned  as  the  Superintendent,
Storage and Issue Section.  Later he was reassigned to  the  Inventory
Management Section.  He was rated in one position  while  assigned  to
another.  This is verified by an APR he accomplished on a member  that
he supervised.  He believes this  report  is  invalid  and  should  be
removed from his records.  He was not due an  annual  report  and  the
rater’s days of supervision falls short of the required days.

In support of his request, the  applicant  submitted  a  copy  of  his
appeal to the Evaluation Report Appeal  Board  (ERAB)  which  includes
copies of the contested reports, pictures and copies  of  his  medical
record, his prior and subsequent APRs, letters of support from the 2nd
indorser of the May 88 APR and the rater of the Apr 89 APR, a copy  of
a  report  accomplished  on  one  of  his  subordinates,   and   other
documentation relating to his appeal.

Applicant’s complete submission is attached at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant’s Total Active Federal Military  Service  Date  (TAFMSD)
was 6 Jun 72.

Applicant’s APR/Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) profile  since  1985
follows:

            PERIOD ENDING          OVERALL EVALUATION

              8 Feb 85                     9
              8 Feb 86                     9
             15 Sep 86                     9
             25 Jun 87                     9
           * 16 May 88                     9
           *  7 Mar 89                     9
             26 May 90                     5 (New rating system)
             26 May 91                     5
             30 Nov 91                     5
              2 Oct 92                     5
              2 Oct 93                     5
              2 Oct 94                     5
              3 May 95                     5
              3 May 96                     5
              3 May 97                     5
              3 May 98                     5

     *  Contested reports.

A similar appeal by the applicant under AFI 36-2401 was considered and
denied by the ERAB on 10 Mar 98.

On 1 Jul 98, the applicant  retired  from  the  Air  Force  under  the
provision of AFI 36-3203 (Maximum Service Or Time-In-Grade  (TIG))  in
the grade of senior master sergeant with an honorable characterization
of service.  He was credited with 26  years  and  25  days  of  active
service.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The  Chief,  Inquiries/AFBCMR  Section,  AFPC/DPPPWB,   reviewed   the
application and addressed  the  supplemental  promotion  consideration
issue.  The first time the contested reports were  considered  in  the
promotion process was cycle 91S9 to chief master sergeant  (promotions
effective 1 Jan 91 - 1 Dec 91).  Should the Board void  the  contested
reports  or  make  any  other  significant  change,  providing  he  is
otherwise eligible, the applicant will  be  entitled  to  supplemental
promotion consideration beginning with cycle 91S9.

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 stated that it is Air Force policy that an  evaluation
report is accurate as written when it becomes a matter of  record  and
to effectively challenge an APR, it is important to hear from all  the
evaluators on the  contested  report—not  only  for  support  but  for
clarification/explanation.  The statement from  the  2nd  indorser  of
both contested reports, some 10  years  after  the  reports  became  a
matter of record, recommends removal of the 16 May 88 report  and  any
report in which higher level indorsements were not  granted  based  on
facts attributable to the applicant’s illness.  While it is  true  the
applicant did not receive higher  level  indorsement  on  the  Mar  89
report, it is also true the Mar 89 report does not mention anything in
regard to the applicant’s illness.  As a matter of fact,  the  rater’s
last  statement  validates  the  accuracy  of  the  Mar   89   report.
Therefore,  DPPPAB  concludes  the  report  was  never  based  on  the
applicant’s illness.  Neither of the  rating  officials  who  provided
statements mention what evidence they have now that was not previously
available for this  consideration  when  they  indorsed  the  original
reports.  The 2nd indorser also makes no mention of support to  remove
the Mar 89 report.  It is not  uncommon  for  evaluators  to  “soften”
their opinions of  an  individual’s  duty  performance  over  time  as
memories fade and specific details are forgotten.

The applicant contends there were fewer than 120 days’ supervision  on
the  Mar  89  APR;  however,  he  failed  to  include   any   official
documentation, such as an evaluation report roster,  to  validate  his
contention.  Also, neither of the evaluators addressed this  issue  in
their correspondence.  Additionally, since  applicant  delayed  filing
his appeal for 10 years, DPPPAB does not believe there  would  be  any
evidence in existence now that would substantiate his claim.

While the applicant contends the contested APRs are inconsistent  with
previous performance,  it  is  not  feasible  to  compare  one  report
covering a certain period of  time  with  another  report  covering  a
different period of time.  This does not  allow  for  changes  in  the
ratee’s performance and does not follow the intent  of  the  governing
regulation, AFR 39-62.  The APR was designed to provide a rating for a
specific period of time based on the  performance  noted  during  that
period, not based on previous  performance.   Based  on  the  evidence
provided, DPPPAB recommended denial of the application.

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

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant reviewed the evaluations and responded, in part, that  a
review of the hospital documentation he submitted should have revealed
that he was in the  midst  of  a  desperate  battle  to  preserve  his
eyesight from a service-connected illness.  The surgeries performed in
Jan 88 and Jul 88 were the last possible things that could be done  to
preserve his vision.  His wife’s medical problems escalated  and  were
not resolved until 1993 and his was not resolved until 1994.  With all
these things facing him, he was not physically or mentally prepared to
take on the discouraging  and  demoralizing  battle  of  preparing  an
appeal.  This appeal has shown that it would  have  required  numerous
hours in collecting, reviewing, and documenting evidence to support an
appeal.  He has now gathered substantial facts  and  information  that
were not available to him when he prepared the appeal to the ERAB.

Applicant’s  complete  response,  with  attachments,  is  attached  at
Exhibit F.

_________________________________________________________________

ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The  Chief,  BCMR  Medical  Consultant,  reviewed  applicant’s  record
regarding allegations that his supervisor used medical information  to
mark him down on his performance report that covered the period 25 Jun
87 to  16 May  88.   The  BCMR  Medical  Consultant  states  that  the
applicant suffered from Grave’s Disease, a condition of  extreme  over
activity of the thyroid gland  with  resultant  metabolic  and  ocular
problems.  He was treated with an extended period of  steroid  therapy
for this which caused some well-recognized problems with weight  gain.
Other than this, and a problem with  a  reaction  to  eye  medications
prompted by the thyroid condition, the applicant does not address  any
other medical condition that he may have developed during his years of
service.  The applicant had known significant health  problems  during
the report period in question which extended back over several  years.
None of this, however, could conceivably explain his  rater’s  comment
on the performance report  in  question  that  addressed  his  medical
problems as “adversely affect(ing) his executive ability.”  A  medical
physical profile, dated 13 Apr 88, addressed the applicant’s weight in
relation to his thyroid disease  and  excused  him  from  “any  weight
standards until treatment is finished.”  (The date 13 Jun 88  was  the
expected release date of  this  temporary  restriction...a  date  that
included the end of the reporting period that addressed his weight  as
being  a  problem  in  regards  to  “weight  management  and  military
appearance standards.”)  Clearly, any  reference  to  the  applicant’s
medical conditions over which he had no  control  were  erroneous  and
should not have been used in characterization of his performance.  The
BCMR Medical Consultant is of the opinion that any  reference  to  the
applicant’s medical conditions noted in the performance report closing
17 May 88 should be stricken  as  being  immaterial,  irrelevant,  and
misleading  for  the   purposes   of   determining   the   applicant’s
administrative capabilities.

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

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of  the  additional  Air  Force  evaluation  was  forwarded  to
applicant on 6 Apr 99 for review and response.  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 warranting removal of the
APR closing 16 May 88.  Our decision hinged on the statement from  the
BCMR Medical Consultant, dated 8 Mar 99.  The BCMR Medical  Consultant
stated that any reference to the applicant’s medical conditions  noted
in the performance report dated 17 May 88 should be stricken as  being
immaterial, irrelevant, and misleading for the purposes of determining
the applicant’s administrative capabilities.  We agree.   In  view  of
this statement, and to eliminate any doubt and possible  injustice  to
the applicant, the Board recommends that the APR closing 16 May 88  be
declared void and removed from his records.  In view of the removal of
the 16 May 88 APR, we also recommend that  the  applicant’s  corrected
record be provided supplemental promotion consideration to  the  grade
of chief master sergeant beginning with cycle 91S9.

4.    Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate
the existence of probable error or injustice warranting removal of the
APR closing 7 Mar 89.  We noted the statements provided from the rater
and 2nd indorser of the contested report.  However,  these  statements
do not convince us that the applicant was rated unfairly or  that  the
report is in error.  In this  respect,  we  note  that  the  7 Mar  89
contested  report  does  not  mention  anything  in  regard   to   the
applicant’s illness.  In addition, while we note  the  statement  from
the rater of the report  in  question  indicated  that  he  has  since
learned that he was applicant’s supervisor for less than the  required
120 days and the period of the  report  is  in  error,  the  applicant
failed  to  include  any  official  documentation  to   validate   his
contention and after noting his delayed filing of his  appeal  for  10
years, we do not believe there would be any evidence in existence  now
that would substantiate his claim.  In view of the foregoing, we  find
no compelling basis to recommend removal of the APR closing 7 Mar 89.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT:

The pertinent military records of the  Department  of  the  Air  Force
relating to APPLICANT, be corrected to show  that  the  CMSGT,  SMSGT,
MSGT Performance Report, AF Form 911, rendered for the  period  26 Jun
87 through 16 May 88 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  for
all appropriate cycles commencing with cycle 91S9.

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 he was promoted to the  higher
grade effective and  with  a  date  of  rank  as  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 3 June 1999, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

                  Ms. Martha Maust, Panel Chair
                  Mr. Clarence D. Long, III, Member
              Ms. Barbara J. White-Olson, Member
              Mrs. Joyce Earley, Examiner (without vote)

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

     Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 20 Apr 98, w/atchs.
     Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
     Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPWB, dated 4 May 98.
     Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPAB, dated 8 May 98.
     Exhibit E.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 18 May 98.
     Exhibit F.  Letter fr applicant, dated 16 Jun 98, w/atchs.
     Exhibit G.  Letter, BCMR Consultant, dated 8 Mar 99.
     Exhibit H.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 6 Apr 99.



                                   MARTHA MAUST
                                   Panel Chair

INDEX CODE:  111.01

AFBCMR 98-01126




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            be corrected to show that the  CMSGT,
SMSGT, MSGT Performance Report, AF Form 911, rendered for  the  period
26 June 1987 through 16 May 1988 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  for
all appropriate cycles commencing with cycle 91S9.

      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 he  was  promoted  to  the
higher grade effective and with a date of rank as 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