RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  98-01624
            INDEX NUMBER:  111.02
            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

The Enlisted Performance Reports (EPRs) closing 26 November  1995  and
25 March 1996 either be upgraded or removed from his records.

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

Reprisal actions were the bases for the contested reports.

The evaluators will not change the ratings that he  received  for  the
contested rating periods.

The report closing in November 1995 was dryly written to downplay  his
true  performance.   Marginal  documentation  was  never  provided  to
substantiate the ratings and he was recently upgraded on his  AF  Form
797 (Job  Qualification  Standard  Continuation/Command  JQS)  showing
increased knowledge.  Feedback never occurred on 28 February 1995.

He was consistently  rated  on  his  additional  duty  as  the  Weight
Management Program Monitor but was never certified.  Those  duties  he
was certified for were reflected in a manner  causing  him  to  appear
complacent.

The report closing March 1996 showed signs of the indorser influencing
the overall rating.  The indorser assumed supervisory responsibilities
which resulted in reprisal actions  against  him  for  non-support  of
illegal UIF policy.   The  impression  was  that  he  was  a  non-team
contributor with questionable loyalty.  The rater falsified the  March
1996  report  stating  mid-term  feedback  couldn’t  be  done  due  to
insufficient period of supervision;  neither  of  them  were  TDY  nor
deployed.  If the rating could be given in 120 days, mid-term feedback
could have been conducted.

In support of his request, applicant provided his  expanded  comments.
He also provided documentation presented  with  his  appeal  submitted
under the provisions of AFI 36-2401 to the Evaluation  Reports  Appeal
Board (ERAB), which  included  copies  of  the  contested  reports;  a
Performance  Feedback  Worksheet,  dated  14  Mar  96;   documentation
associated with a letter of reprimand received  during  the  contested
rating period; documentation associated with his training records; and
several  statements  of  character  reference  from   co-workers   and
acquaintances.  (Exhibit A)

___________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Information extracted from the Personnel Data  System  (PDS)  reflects
applicant’s Total Active Federal Military Service Date (TAFMSD)  as  5
November 1990.  He is currently serving on active duty in the grade of
staff sergeant, with a date of rank of 1 October 1998.

A resume of applicant’s EPRs follows:

      PERIOD ENDING    OVERALL EVALUATION

         2 Sep 92      4
        26 Nov 93      3
        26 Nov 94      4
    *   26 Nov 95      3
    *   25 Mar 96      3
        25 Mar 97      5
        31 Jan 98      3
        30 Sep 98      3

* Contested reports.  A similar appeal submitted under the  provisions
of AFI 36-2401 was denied  by  the  Evaluation  Reports  Appeal  Board
(ERAB) on 2 March 1998.

___________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The Enlisted Promotion and Testing Branch, AFPC/DPPPWB, reviewed  this
application and provided comments  addressing  supplemental  promotion
consideration.  Should the Board void the reports in  their  entirety,
or upgrade the overall ratings, providing he  is  otherwise  eligible,
the applicant will be entitled to supplemental promotion consideration
beginning with cycle 96E5.  However, the applicant will not  become  a
selectee during these cycles, even if the Board  grants  his  request.
(Exhibit C)

The BCMR and SSB Section, AFPC/DPPPAB, reviewed this  application  and
recommended denial based on the  lack  of  evidence  provided.   Their
comments, in part, follow.

DPPPAB  stated  that  a  review  of  the  documentation  included   in
applicant’s appeal package indicates he was counseled verbally several
times during  the  reporting  period  for  lack  of  initiative,  poor
application  of  job  knowledge,  substandard  dress  and  appearance,
disrespect to Senior Noncommissioned Officers  (SNCOs),  inability  to
contribute as part of a  team,  poor  communication  skills  (rude  to
customers), and insubordination to his superiors.  The  applicant  has
failed to provide any information/support from the rating chain on the
contested reports.  He included  several  memoranda  from  individuals
outside the rating  chain  to  support  his  contentions.   While  the
individuals are entitled to their opinions of the  applicant  and  his
duty performance, DPPPAB  did  not  believe  they  were  in  a  better
position to evaluate applicant’s duty performance than those who  were
actually charged with that responsibility.

Applicant contends his supervisor rendered the  contested  reports  in
reprisal against him and requests the  Board  upgrade  or  strike  the
reports from the record.  However, he does not specify  how  he  wants
the Board to upgrade the reports, nor does he submit clear evidence to
prove reprisal was a factor.  He does not mention that  he  filed  any
sort of official complaint with the Inspector General (IG)  or  Social
Actions (SA), nor did he provide any substantial evidence to  convince
DPPPAB reprisal occurred.

While it is true the applicant received only one feedback  session  11
days prior to the closeout of the 25 March 1996 report,  it  does  not
invalidate the report.  The fact that the  applicant  does  not  agree
with the rater’s reason why the feedback  session  was  not  given  is
irrelevant and does not make the EPR erroneous.  Lack of counseling or
feedback, by itself, is not sufficient to challenge  the  accuracy  or
justness of a report.

As to applicant’s claims that he was not trained adequately to perform
his primary duties, DPPPAB stated that failing to provide training and
failing to document training are  different  problems.   OJT  records,
reviews of OJT records,  and  OJT  inspection  reports  do  not  prove
training was not conducted, only that  training  was  not  documented.
The applicant must provide supporting  statements  from  rating  chain
officials who can give specific information about the training problem
and its impact on the EPR.

The complete evaluation is at Exhibit D.

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

In his response, the applicant stated it  is  unfortunate  that  false
allegations put into administrative  disciplinary  memos  (letters  of
Counseling, Letters of Admonishment, etc.) which  never  substantiated
any of his actions, but cited only what was needed to  build  a  paper
case against him, are considered  to  be  truth  just  because  it  is
written under Air Force policy that an evaluation is presumed accurate
as written when it becomes a  matter  of  record.   He  maintains  his
position that there has been no  substantiation  to  the  claims  made
against his character and integrity.  He initially made  contact  with
his former rater, who made it clear that he felt the ratings  he  gave
him were just.  As he mentioned in  his  initial  appeal,  his  rating
chain did not want to change the ratings.

To overlook the supporting  documentation  from  the  individuals  who
worked with him is to miss the point that he is trying  to  make;  his
rating chain acted in an unprofessional manner and  those  individuals
who worked along side of him in that  environment  were  witnesses  to
what happened.

He did not request assistance  from  the  squadron  commander  because
there was bias about him presented by his rating chain.

Applicant response is 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.   By   regulation,
evaluators are tasked with the responsibility of assessing  a  ratee’s
performance, honestly and to the best of their ability, based on their
observance  of  an  individual’s  performance.   We  have  noted   the
documents provided by the applicant.  However, these documents do not,
in our opinion, support a finding that the evaluators were  unable  to
render unbiased evaluations of the applicant’s performance or that the
ratings on either of the contested reports were based on factors other
than the applicant’s duty  performance  during  the  contested  rating
periods.  Other than his own assertions, we find  that  the  applicant
has not presented any evidence substantiating his contention that  the
28 February 1995 feedback session did not occur as  indicated  on  the
report closing 26 November 1995.  Even if the feedback session did not
occur, we do not find the rater’s failure to conduct either initial or
midterm feedback sessions to be a sufficient basis to  invalidate  the
contested reports.  In view of the foregoing, and in  the  absence  of
evidence to the contrary, we find no  compelling  basis  to  recommend
favorable action on the applicant’s request that the contested reports
either be upgraded or removed from his records.

___________________________________________________________________

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 28 January 1999, under the provisions of AFI  36-
2603:

      Mrs. Barbara A. Westgate, Panel Chair
      Mr. Henry Romo Jr., Member
      Mr. Kenneth L. Reinertson, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 2 May 98, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
      Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPWB, dated 17 Jun 98.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPAB, dated 26 Jun 98, w/atch.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 20 Jul 99.
    Exhibit F.  Letter, Applicant, dated 1 Dec 98, w/atch.




                                   BARBARA A. WESTGATE
                                   Panel Chair