RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  98-01635
            INDEX NUMBER:  111.02
            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

The Enlisted Performance Reports  (EPRs)  closing  16  November  1994,
16 November 1995, and 16 November 1996 be voided.

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The unjust ratings were  due  to  a  personality  conflict  (extremely
subjective and biased ratings), lack of training (he was  a  retrainee
with no prior dietary experience), and total lack of communication.

He does not have  any  additional  documentation  to  further  support
voiding  the  16  November  1994  EPR.   In  his  submissions  to  the
Evaluation  Reports  Appeal   Board   (ERAB),   he   illustrated   his
insufficient training, his attempts to get training, and the different
conversations he had with the rater concerning  his  duty  performance
and accomplished workload tasks.

The EPR closing 16 November 1995 was in the orderly room, in its final
draft, awaiting the  commander’s  signature.   The  rater  arbitrarily
retrieved  the  EPR  and  made  substantial  changes.   Eight   bullet
statements were changed  along  with  the  markings  and  the  overall
rating.  These changes were subsequent to his  conversation  with  the
rater concerning his (applicant’s) disagreement with the “4” rating he
found out he was getting.  The conversation resulted in him  receiving
a letter of reprimand.

In support of his request, applicant provided  his  expanded  comments
and letters of support from his former squadron section commander  and
three co-workers/acquaintances.  He also provided copies of his  three
appeal packages submitted under the provisions of AFI  36-2401,  which
contain documentary evidence in support of his appeal.  (Exhibit A)

___________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Information extracted from the Personnel Data  System  (PDS)  reflects
applicant’s Total Active Federal Military Service Date (TAFMSD) as  17
May 1982.  He is currently serving on active  duty  in  the  grade  of
technical sergeant.

A resume of applicant’s APRs/EPRs, extracted from the PDS, follows:

     PERIOD CLOSING    OVERALL EVALUATION

       11 Feb 88 9
       11 Feb 89 9
       11 Feb 90 (EPR) 5
       11 Feb 91 4
        7 Feb 92 5
       16 Nov 92 5
       16 Nov 93 5
   *   16 Nov 94 4
   *   16 Nov 95 3
   *   16 Nov 96 3
       16 Nov 97 4
       16 Nov 98 5

* Contested reports.  Similar appeals submitted under  the  provisions
of AFI 36-2401, were considered and denied by the  Evaluation  Reports
Appeal Board (ERAB) on 17 April 1996, 29 July  1997,  and  9  February
1998, respectively.

___________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The  Enlisted  Promotion  Branch,   AFPC/DPPPWB,   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 96E7.

In promotion cycle 96E7 to master  sergeant,  the  reports  considered
closed 16 Nov 94 and 16 Nov 95.  The applicant will  become  a  select
during cycle 96E7 if the Board grants the request, pending a favorable
data verification and the recommendation of the commander.

In promotion cycle 97E7, all  three  of  the  contested  reports  were
considered.  If the Board  voids  all  of  the  reports  as  requested
applicant would also become a select, but  if  approved  in  part,  he
would not become a select.

All three reports were considered in the promotion  cycle  98E7.   The
decision of the Board would not affect  applicant’s  promotion  as  he
would not become a select.

The complete evaluation is at Exhibit C.

The BCMR and SSB Section, AFPC/DPPPAB, reviewed this  application  and
recommended denial.  Their comments, in part, follow.

The applicant has not provided supporting statements from rating chain
officials who can give specific information about the training problem
and its impact on the 16 November 1994 EPR.  The  statement  from  his
commander does not address the  training  issue  or  any  other  issue
relating to his 94 EPR.  The  statement  she  provided  addresses  her
opinion of his duty performance and ability to get along  with  others
during the subsequent reporting period.  It is important to  note  she
was not a member of applicant’s  rating  chain  during  the  reporting
period of either the 95 or 96 reports.

DPPPAB noted applicant’s contention that his rater downgraded the  Nov
95 report because of a letter of reprimand (LOR) he received on  5 Dec
95.  Although the rater of the report downgraded the report after  the
applicant received the LOR, it does not prove it was a result  of  the
LOR.

The applicant contends his supervisor rendered the contested 95 and 96
reports in reprisal against him.  However, he does  not  submit  clear
evidence to prove reprisal was a factor.   The  applicant  included  a
memorandum from an official from Social Actions (SA)  who  recommended
applicant use his chain of command to resolve the issue.  It  appears,
by  their  refusal  to  conduct  a  formal  investigation,  sufficient
evidence did not exist to prove reprisal occurred.  He referred to the
incident as “a management issue.”

DPPPAB noted that the  reviewer  of  the  16  Nov  95  EPR  claims  he
conducted another review of the report and now believes  the  comments
support a “4” instead of a “3” promotion recommendation.  However, AFI
36-2403, para 4.11 (in part), charges  a  commander  to  complete  the
review of the EPR before sending it to the military  personnel  flight
(MPF) for file.  If commanders disagree with the ratings  or  comments
on the  report,  they  discuss  the  disagreement  with  the  previous
evaluators.  If the parties still don’t agree, the commander marks the
“nonconcur” block and signs the EPR  in  the  space  provided.   Since
there are provisions in place to properly handle discrepancies between
members of the rating chain, DPPPAB determined the  reviewer  had  the
option to thoroughly review and upgrade the report before it became  a
matter of record, but did not.

The applicant produced documents to prove he had tried  everything  to
resolve his duty situation  to  include  avoiding  his  rater,  cross-
training and applying for assignments.  What he did not  include  were
the efforts he made to follow the instructions his rater had given  on
his performance  feedbacks.   The  applicant  has  failed  to  provide
statements from  any  of  the  other  evaluators  from  the  contested
reports.   DPPPAB  therefore   concluded   that   the   reports   were
accomplished in accordance with governing directives.

Regarding the performance feedback session held on 6 January 1996, the
rater specified problems areas the applicant needed to concentrate  on
in order to enhance  his  duty  performance  and  effectiveness  as  a
supervisor.  The fact the applicant did not agree or change  his  duty
performance does not discount the performance feedback or  render  the
Nov 95 report invalid.

The applicant contends he did not  receive  the  28  Jun  96  feedback
session as indicated on his 16 Nov 96 EPR; however, he did not provide
anything from his evaluator to support his allegation.   DPPPAB  noted
the applicant did include copies of performance  feedback  worksheets,
dated 9 Feb, 29 May, 20 Aug, and 21 Oct 96.  The  fact  the  applicant
does not have a copy or did not include a copy of the 28  Jun  96  PFW
does not prove it did not occur.  It is obvious the applicant’s  rater
conducted at least four feedback sessions during the contested  rating
period, and only two are required by Air Force directive.

The complete evaluation is at Exhibit D.

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Applicant disagreed with the DPPPAB advisory opinion and provided  his
expanded comments addressing  the  documentation  presented  with  his
initial application.

In further support of his request,  applicant  provided  documentation
reflecting award of the  Air  Force  Achievement  Medal  covering  the
period 25 Sep 95 - 30 Jul 96, and an  additional  statement  from  the
commander who reviewed the report closing 16 Nov 95.

Applicant’s complete statement, with attachments, 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.  Sufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the
existence of probable error or injustice warranting corrective  action
with respect to the EPR  closing  16  November  1995.   After  careful
consideration of the evidence provided,  we  believe  there  was  some
relationship  between  the  letter  of  reprimand  applicant  received
subsequent to the closeout date of the  report  and  the  overall  “3”
rating on the contested report.  Especially in view of the  fact  that
the report had been signed by both the rater and the indorser prior to
the letter of reprimand and reflected an overall “4” rating.   In  our
opinion, it is highly likely that  the  lower  ratings  the  applicant
received on the final report were an overreaction by his rater to  the
event which led to the issuance of the LOR and therefore causes us  to
doubt the accuracy and fairness of the contested report.  We therefore
believe any doubt should be resolved in the applicant’s favor and that
the contested report should be declared  void  and  removed  from  his
records.  Accordingly, we recommend that the records be  corrected  as
indicated below.

4.  Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented  to  demonstrate
the existence of probable error or injustice with respect to the  EPRs
closing 16 November 1994 and 16 November 1996.  We noted the documents
provided with the applicant’s submission.  However, these documents do
not, in our opinion, support a finding that the evaluators,  who  were
tasked  with  the  responsibility   of   assessing   the   applicant’s
performance, were unable to render unbiased evaluations  of  his  duty
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  January  1996  feedback
session did not occur as indicated on the report closing  16  November
1996.  Even if the feedback session did not occur, we do not find this
to  be  a  sufficient  basis  to  invalidate  the  contested   report.
Furthermore, the documents provided  by  the  applicant  reflect  that
several feedback sessions were conducted during the  contested  rating
period ending 16 November 1996.  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 be removed from his records.
___________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT:

The pertinent military records of the  Department  of  the  Air  Force
relating to APPLICANT, be corrected to show  that  the  AF  Form  910,
Enlisted Performance Report (AB thru TSGT), rendered  for  the  period
17 November 1994 through  16  November  1995,  be  declared  void  and
removed from his records.

___________________________________________________________________

The following members of the  Board  considered  this  application  in
Executive Session on 11 March 1999, under the provisions  of  AFI  36-
2603:

      Mr. Thomas S. Markiewicz, Panel Chair
      Mr. John E. Pettit, Member
      Mr. Gregory W. DenHerder, Member

All members  voted  to  correct  the  records,  as  recommended.   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 25 Jun 98.
     Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPAB, dated 2 Jul 98.
     Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 20 Jul 98.
     Exhibit F.  Letter from Applicant, undated, w/atchs.




                                   THOMAS S. MARKIEWICZ
                                   Panel Chair



AFBCMR 98-01635




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 [APPLICANT], be corrected to show that the AF Form
910, Enlisted Performance Report (AB thru TSGT), rendered for the
period 17 November 1994 through 16 November 1995, be, and hereby is,
declared void and removed from his records.






            JOE G. LINEBERGER
            Director
            Air Force Review Boards Agency