RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  98-01614
            INDEX CODE:  111.02

            COUNSEL:  None

            HEARING DESIRED:  Yes


_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

The Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) rendered for the  period  21 May
96 through 20 May 97 be declared void and removed from his records.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The contested report is in error and unjust.  He  believes  his  rater
was biased and prejudiced against him and could  not  render  a  fair,
honest and objective evaluation.  He  also  believes  the  performance
feedback worksheet (PFW) does not “mirror” the EPR and his rater based
his evaluation “on the moment” and disregarded the Enlisted Evaluation
System (EES).  He also cautioned the Evaluation Report  Appeals  Board
(ERAB) not to “contaminate” the  evidence  included  with  a  case  by
marking portions with a highlighter.

In support of his appeal, the applicant provided a personal  brief,  a
copy of the ERAB package, rebuttal comments  to  the  ERAB’s  decision
memorandum, memorandums of support  from  outside  the  rating  chain,
letters of appreciation from outside the rating period, copies of  his
PFWs, and memorandums of support from outside the rating chain.

Applicant’s complete submission is attached at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant’s Total Active Federal Military Service Date (TAFMSD) is
23 Jun 86.  He is currently serving in the Regular Air  Force  (RegAF)
in the grade of staff sergeant, effective, and with  a  date  of  rank
(DOR) of 1 Jan 93.  The applicant was selected for  promotion  to  the
grade of technical sergeant for cycle 98E6.

Applicant’s Airman Performance Report (APR)/EPR profile follows:

            PERIOD ENDING          OVERALL EVALUATION

              1 Apr 87                     9
              1 Nov 87                     9
              1 Nov 88                     9
             26 Jul 91                     4 (New rating system)
              3 Jul 92                     5
              3 Jul 93                     5
              3 Jul 94                     5
              7 Aug 95                     5
             20 May 96                     5
           * 20 May 97                     4
             20 May 98                     5

*  Contested report.

A similar appeal was considered under AFI 36-2401, Correcting  Officer
and Enlisted Evaluation Reports, which was denied by the ERAB on 9 Mar
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  98E6  to  technical
sergeant (promotions effective Aug 98 - Jul  99).   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   98E6.
However, since he has been selected during this  cycle  per  Promotion
Sequence Number 07122.0, it would serve no useful purpose  to  provide
him supplemental consideration for the 98E6 cycle.

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

The Acting 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  and
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.  The applicant has failed  to  provide  any
information/support from the rating chain on the contested  EPR.   The
statements from outside the rating  chain  are  not  germane  to  this
appeal.  While the individuals are entitled to their opinions  of  the
applicant and his performance, DPPPAB is not convinced they were in  a
better position to evaluate applicant’s duty  performance  than  those
who were specifically charged with that responsibility.

The applicant contends his rater was biased and prejudiced against him
and he was a victim of a double  standard.   To  prove  discrimination
occurred, he must provide an official equal opportunity and  treatment
(EOT) investigation, reviewed and validated by appropriate  officials.
As an alternative, he could have included statements from officials in
the rating chain or other credible sources who had firsthand knowledge
of the discrimination.  Although  applicant  contends  his  rater  was
biased against him, DPPPAB notes that the same rater gave  him  a  “5”
promotion  recommendation  on  the  subsequent  report.   In   worker-
supervisor relationships, some disagreements are likely to occur since
a  worker  must  abide  by  a  supervisor’s  policies  and  decisions.
Personnel who do not perform at expected standards  or  require  close
supervision may  believe  that  an  evaluator  is  personally  biased;
however, the conflict generated by this personal attention is  usually
professional rather than personal.

While the applicant is attempting to relate the ratings on the EPR  to
the markings on the PFW, this is an inappropriate  comparison  and  is
inconsistent with the EES.  The purpose of the feedback session is  to
give the ratee direction and to define  performance  expectations  for
the rating period in question.  Feedback also provides the  ratee  the
opportunity to improve performance, if necessary, before  the  EPR  is
written.  The rater who prepares the PFW may use the PFW as an aid  in
preparing the EPR and, if applicable,  subsequent  feedback  sessions.
Ratings on the PFW are not an absolute indicator  of  EPR  ratings  or
potential for serving in a higher grade.  The PFW acts as a  scale  on
where the ratee stands in relation to the performance expectations  of
the  rater.   A  PFW  with  all  items  marked  “needs  little  or  no
improvement” means the ratee is meeting  the  rater’s  standards.   It
does not guarantee a firewalled  EPR.   Also,  a  ratee  who  performs
current duties in an exceptional manner could demonstrate only limited
potential for the next higher grade.  Or, a ratee who still  needs  to
improve in the performance of current duties could  demonstrate  great
potential  for  the  next  higher  grade.   There  is  not  a   direct
correlation between the markings on the PFW and the ratings on an EPR.
 DPPPAB noted the markings on the PFW, dated 17 Dec 96,  clearly  show
areas the applicant needed improvement and  some  areas  discussed  on
this feedback were also mentioned on his first feedback, dated  11 Jul
96.   Every  exceptional  performer  does  not   possess   outstanding
promotion potential and evaluators need to make that clear on the EPRs
they write.

Also, while the applicant believes his rater based his evaluation  “on
the  moment”  and  disregarded  the  EES,  it   is   the   evaluator’s
responsibility to consider  incidents,  their  significance,  and  the
frequency they occur when assessing performance and  potential.   Only
the rater knows how much an incident influenced  the  EPR;  therefore,
the opinions of the individuals  outside  the  rating  chain  are  not
relevant.  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.  The applicant’s report is
not inaccurate or unfair simply because he believes it is.

Regarding applicant voicing a concern about documents he submitted  in
support of his appeal to the ERAB  that  were  returned  to  him  with
portions highlighted,  AFPC/DPPPAE  routinely  makes  copies  of  each
applicant’s  AF   Form   948   and   all   supporting   documentation.
Unfortunately, the copies were inadvertently returned to the applicant
and the originals were maintained in DPPPAE’s file.   DPPPAB  replaced
the highlighted copies with the originals (from  DPPPAE’s  files)  for
the Board’s review.  Based on the 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  an  8-page
rebuttal statement.  He also  provided  a  statement  indicating  that
while it is true that it would serve no useful purpose to provide  him
supplemental consideration for  the  98E6  cycle  since  he  has  been
selected on this cycle, he would like to correct his score  and  other
statistics that are involved in the Weighted Airman  Promotion  System
(WAPS) like his standing or ranking  among  promotees  of  his  career
field.  It appears that he is requesting that all  records  pertaining
to his WAPS score sheet be corrected.

Applicant’s complete responses are attached at 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  have  reviewed  the
applicant’s contentions and the statements provided with this  appeal.
However, a majority of the Board finds no persuasive evidence  showing
that the applicant was rated unfairly, that the report is in error, or
that the rater was biased and prejudiced against  the  applicant.   In
our opinion, the rater was responsible for assessing  the  applicant’s
performance during the period in question  and  is  presumed  to  have
rendered his evaluation based on his observation  of  the  applicant’s
performance.  While the applicant provided statements from individuals
outside the rating chain, a majority of the  Board  is  not  persuaded
that these statements substantiate his allegation that  the  contested
report  was  incorrect  or  unfair  at  the  time  it   was   written.
Furthermore, we note the applicant’s assertion that he did not receive
performance feedback but the EPR reflects that he did.  However, other
than his own assertions, he provided no evidence to  substantiate  his
claim.  Additionally, and in accordance  with  regulation,  a  rater’s
failure to conduct required or requested feedback will not, of itself,
invalidate any subsequent EPR.  Lastly, regarding applicant’s  concern
about documents he submitted in support of his appeal to the ERAB that
were returned to him highlighted, it  appears  that  the  copies  were
inadvertently returned to him and the  originals  were  maintained  in
DPPPAE’s file.  However, DPPPAB replaced the highlighted  copies  with
the originals for the Board’s review.  In view of  the  foregoing  and
since the applicant has failed to sustain his burden that he has  been
a victim of either an error or an injustice, a majority of  the  Board
finds no compelling basis to recommend granting the relief sought.

4.    The documentation provided with this case was sufficient to give
the Board a clear understanding of the issues involved and a  personal
appearance, with or without counsel, would not have  materially  added
to that understanding.  Therefore, the request for a  hearing  is  not
favorably considered.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:

A majority of the  panel  finds  insufficient  evidence  of  error  or
injustice and recommends the application be denied.

_________________________________________________________________

The following members of the  Board  considered  this  application  in
Executive Session on 27 April 1999, under the provisions of Air  Force
Instruction 36-2603:

                  Ms. Patricia J. Zarodkiewicz, Panel Chair
                  Ms. Dorothy P. Loeb, Member
                  Ms. Olga M. Crerar, Member
                Mrs. Joyce Earley, Examiner (without vote)

By a majority vote, the Board recommended denial of  the  application.
Ms Loeb voted to grant the relief sought but does not wish to submit a
minority report.  The following documentary evidence was considered:



The following documentary evidence was considered:

     Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 3 Jun 98, w/atchs.
     Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
     Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPWB, dated 29 Jul 98.
     Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPAB, dated 28 Aug 98.
     Exhibit E.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 14 Sep 98.
     Exhibit F.  Letters fr applicant, dated 5 Oct 98.



                                   PATRICIA J. ZARODKIEWICZ
                                   Panel Chair