RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  98-01713
                 INDEX CODE:  131

                 COUNSEL:  NONE

                 HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

1.  The Enlisted Performance Report (EPR), for the  period  1 December
1994  through  30  November  1995,  be  declared  void  or;,  in   the
alternative, the overall rating be upgraded.

2.  He receive supplemental consideration for promotion to  the  grade
of staff sergeant (E-5) by the 97E5 promotion cycle.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

His supervisor (rater of the contested report) was coerced into giving
him an overall “3” rating which the  applicant  believes  he  did  not
deserve.  Applicant alleges that the rater and indorser of the EPR  in
question  had  a  total  disregard  for  the  AFI  36-2403  when  they
accomplished the 30 November 1995 EPR.   The  rater’s  and  indorser’s
comments in Sections V  and  VI  are  undeniably  true  accolades  and
achievements.  However, the comments  contradict  the  ratings  given.
The rater also failed to  correctly  administer  feedback.   Applicant
believes  his  rater’s  rater  (outside  his  rating  chain)  unfairly
disliked him and discriminated against him.

In support of his request, the applicant submits a statement from  the
rater of the EPR in  question  in  which  he  indicates  that  he  was
influenced in unfair ways and his interpretation of the rating  system
at that time was more stern than it should have been.   He  states  he
would have given the applicant an overall “4” rating.  Applicant  also
submits a statement from a subsequent rater, statements from coworkers
and, copies of Airman Performance Feedback Worksheets.

Applicant’s submission is attached at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant is currently serving in the Regular Air Force in  the  grade
of staff sergeant (E-5).

The applicant filed four similar appeals under AFI 36-2401 which  were
denied by the Evaluation Reports Appeal Board on 23 September 1997, 14
November 1997, 9 March 1998, and 11 May 1998.

The applicant’s EPR profile is as follows:

          PERIOD ENDING          OVERALL EVALUATION

            20 Mar 91                   4
            30 Nov 91                   3
            30 Nov 92                   4
            30 Nov 93                   4
            30 Nov 94                   4
          * 30 Nov 95                   3
            30 Nov 96                   5
            30 Nov 97                   5
            25 Jul 98                   4

* Contested EPR

Information in the applicant’s Assignment Processing Surf indicates he
was promoted to the grade of staff sergeant (E-5) with a date of  rank
of 1 September 1998, Cycle 98E5.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The Chief, Inquiries/AFBCMR Section,  Enlisted  Promotion  &  Military
Testing Branch,  HQ  AFPC/DPPPWB,  states  that  the  first  time  the
contested report was considered in the  promotion  process  was  cycle
96E5 to staff sergeant.  Should the Board void the report, or  upgrade
the overall rating, providing he is otherwise eligible, the  applicant
would be entitled to supplemental  promotion  consideration  beginning
with cycle 96E5.  Applicant would not become a  selectee  during  that
cycle but would become  a  selectee  for  the  97E5  cycle  pending  a
favorable data verification and the recommendation of the commander.

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

The Chief, BCMR and SSB Section, HQ AFPC/DPPPAB, states 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.   The
applicant provided a statement from his rater, but failed  to  provide
any information/support from the other members of his rating chain  on
the contested EPR.

It is the rater’s responsibility to honestly and fairly  evaluate  the
applicant’s duty performance.  Evaluators who change their evaluations
after talking with their rater but before the report becomes a  matter
of record have not necessarily been coerced.  Instead, they  may  have
simply been  made  aware  of  disqualifying  factors.   The  applicant
mentions his rater is no longer serving in the military so it  is  now
safe for him to speak  truthfully.   Had  the  rater  been  thoroughly
convinced the applicant was ready for promotion (“4”) it is not likely
he would have lowered his promotion assessment to a “3” after  meeting
with the rater’s rater.  The EPR was accomplished in direct accordance
with applicable regulations.

The applicant  failed  to  provide  anything  official,  i.e.,  Social
Actions or Inspector General investigations, that  his  rater’s  rater
unfairly disliked him and discriminated against him.

The applicant believes the comments are inconsistent with  the  rating
he received.  While he is entitled to his opinion, he has not provided
anything to substantiate his claim.

Applicant relates the ratings on the EPR to the lack  of  comments  on
the performance feedback worksheet (PFW).  This  is  an  inappropriate
comparison and is inconsistent with the  Enlisted  Evaluation  System.
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.  There is not  a
direct correlation between the markings on the PFW and the ratings  on
an EPR.

A review of the documents provided does  not  reveal  a  violation  of
regulatory provisions or indicate an  injustice  has  occurred.   They
recommend the applicant’s request be denied.

A complete copy of the Air  Force  evaluation,  with  attachments,  is
attached at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Applicant submitted a  response  to  the  Air  Force  evaluations  and
states, in summary, that he has effectively challenged the  1995  EPR.
A statement from his rater and subsequent  rater  indicated  they  had
both been coerced by  their  supervisors.   Applicant  states  that  a
review of the documents reveals that a direct violation of  regulatory
provisions and an injustice has occurred. He states that  this  appeal
is not an effort to remove an “undesirable” report; but, rather to set
the record straight.

A copy of the  applicant’s  complete  response,  with  attachment,  is
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.  Sufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the
existence  of  probable  error  or  injustice.   After  reviewing  the
evidence of record, we believe there is some doubt as to  whether  the
contested Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) is an accurate  assessment
of  the  applicant’s  performance  during  the  period  in   question.
Applicant contends that the rater and indorser had a  total  disregard
for the Air Force Instruction (AFI) 36-2403 when they accomplished the
contested report.  Applicant also contends that the rater of  the  EPR
in question was coerced by the indorser into giving the  applicant  an
overall “3” rating.  It does not appear that the rating chain violated
the AFI in rendering the contested report.  We do note  the  statement
submitted by the rater of the contested report in which he states that
he was coerced to lower the assigned rating and that  he  intended  to
rate the applicant an overall “4”, but in fear of retaliation from his
supervisor, he lowered the rating.  The applicant fails  to  submit  a
statement from the indorser of the contested  report.   He  submits  a
performance feedback worksheet  that  was  accomplished  three  months
prior to the close out of the contested report.  However, it does  not
appear that the applicant was performing at  a  level  to  support  an
overall “3” rating.  We also do not believe the comments in Sections V
and VI coincide with the  overall  rating  of  the  contested  report.
Therefore, we believe there was an injustice done  to  the  applicant.
In view of the foregoing and in an effort to offset any possibility of
an injustice, we recommend the EPR in question be  declared  void  and
removed from applicant’s records.  Furthermore, we recommend  that  he
be provided supplemental consideration for promotion to the  grade  of
Staff Sergeant for all appropriate cycles beginning with cycle 97E5.

_______________________________________________________________________
_____________________

THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT:

The pertinent military records of the  Department  of  the  Air  Force
relating  to  APPLICANT,  be  corrected  to  show  that  the  Enlisted
Performance Report, AF Form 910, rendered for  the  period  1 December
1994 through 30 November 1995, be declared void and removed  from  his
records.

It  is  further  recommended  that   he   be   provided   supplemental
consideration for promotion to the grade of staff sergeant  (E-5)  for
all appropriate cycles beginning with cycle 97E5.

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 applicant was promoted to  the
higher grade on the date  of  rank  established  by  the  supplemental
promotion and that applicant 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 27 April 1999, under the provisions  of  AFI  36-
2603:

                  Ms. Patricia J. Zarodkiewicz, Panel Chair
                  Ms. Dorothy P. Loeb, Member
              Ms. Olga M. Crerar, Member

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

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 15 Jun 98.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant's EPR Records.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPPWB, dated 14 Jul 98.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPPAB, dated 17 Jul 98.
   Exhibit E.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 3 Aug 98.
   Exhibit F.  Applicant’s Letter, dated 11 Aug 98, w/atch.
   Exhibit G.  Applicant’s Letter, dated 14 Apr 99.





                                   PATRICIA J. ZARODKIEWICZ
                                   Panel Chair


INDEX CODE:  131

AFBCMR 98-01713




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  Enlisted
Performance Report, AF Form 910, rendered for  the  period  1 December
1994 through 30 November 1995, 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 staff sergeant (E-5) for
all appropriate cycles beginning with cycle 97E5.

      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 applicant was promoted to
the higher grade on the date of rank established by the supplemental
promotion and that applicant is entitled to all pay, allowances, and
benefits of such grade as of that date.







   JOE G. LINEBERGER

   Director

   Air Force Review Boards Agency