RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  98-01736
            INDEX CODE:  111.02

            COUNSEL:  None

            HEARING DESIRED:  No


_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

The Enlisted Performance Report(EPR) rendered for the period 23 Jun 89
through 20 Feb 90 be declared void and removed from his records.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The EPR in question has  several  gross  substantive  and  qualitative
errors and he discusses each one in detail.

Applicant’s complete submission is attached at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant’s Total Active Federal Military  Service  Date  (TAFMSD)
was 22 Sep 78.

Applicant’s EPR profile since 1987 reflects the following:

            PERIOD ENDING          OVERALL EVALUATION

             15 May 87                     9
             22 Jun 88                     9
             22 Jun 89                     9
           * 20 Feb 90                     3 (New rating system)
             20 Feb 91                     5
             31 Oct 91                     4
             31 Jul 92                     5
              1 May 93                     4
              5 Dec 93                     5
             11 Mar 95                     5
             11 Mar 96                     5
             16 Nov 96                     5
              1 Aug 97                     5
              2 Dec 97                     5

     *  Contested EPR.

Applicant filed a similar appeal under AFI 36-2401, Correcting Officer
and Enlisted Evaluation Reports, which was denied  by  the  Evaluation
Reports Appeal Board (ERAB) on 6 Jul 98.

On 1 Oct 98, the applicant retired from the Air Force in the grade  of
technical sergeant, effective, and with a date of rank (DOR) of  1 Sep
93.  He was credited with 20 years and 11 days of active service.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The  Chief,  Inquiries/AFBCMR  Section,  AFPC/DPPPWB,  reviewed   this
application and indicated that since the applicant was serving in  the
grade of staff sergeant when the contested report was written, it  was
first considered in the promotion process to technical sergeant during
cycle 92A6 (promotions effective Aug 91 - Jul 92).   However,  removal
or upgrading the overall rating of this  report  would  not  make  the
applicant a selectee to technical sergeant during cycles 92A6 or 93A6.
 The contested report was considered again in the promotion process to
technical sergeant during cycle  94A6.   Should  the  Board  void  the
contested report in its entirety or upgrade  the  overall  rating,  no
supplemental  promotion  consideration  will  be  required  since  the
applicant was promoted to technical sergeant  during  the  94A6  cycle
with a DOR of 1 Sep 93.  Based on  the  applicant’s  present  DOR  for
technical sergeant of 1 Sep 93, the subject report would not have been
considered in the promotion process to master sergeant.

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 indicated that while the applicant alleges  his  rater
was not assigned to his duty section until Oct 89 and, therefore, only
supervised  him  116  days,  it  is  not  uncommon  for   raters   and
subordinates to be assigned to  different  shifts.   Many  individuals
have  to  perform  duties  without  the  benefit   of   direct   daily
supervision; therefore, separation alone is not a good  argument.   In
order  to  prove  his  contention,  the  applicant  needs  to  provide
conclusive documentation showing his rater had no valid basis on which
to assess his duty performance.  He failed  to  provide  any  evidence
(other than his own opinion) to prove his rater  only  supervised  him
for 116 days.

Applicant’s claims that he participated  in  a  deployment  to  Panama
called “BLADE JEWEL” but his  rater  erroneously  referred  to  it  as
“BRIGHT STAR” on his EPR, as the ERAB pointed out in  their  6 Jul  98
memorandum, “...he has shown he was involved in exercise BLADE  JEWEL,
he has not shown that he could not also have been involved  in  BRIGHT
STAR.  Regardless, at best, this would be an administrative error  and
not justification for voiding the report.”

While the applicant contends that he was not given feedback during the
contested reporting period, only  members  in  the  rating  chain  can
confirm if counseling was provided.  Lack of counseling  or  feedback,
by itself, is not sufficient to challenge the accuracy or justness  of
a report.  Evaluators must confirm they did not provide counseling  or
feedback and that this directly resulted in an unfair evaluation.

The applicant believes the comments on the EPR should have caused  the
report to become a referral.  DPPPAB disagrees and states that AFR 39-
62 (paragraph 2-25) defines a referral report as an EPR with a  rating
in the far left  block  of  any  performance  factor  in  Section  III
(Evaluation of Performance) and a rating  of  “1,”  an  unsatisfactory
performer not recommended  for  promotion  in  Section  IV  (Promotion
Recommendation).  Comments in the  EPR  that  refer  to  behavior  not
meeting minimum acceptable standards of personal  conduct,  character,
or integrity must be compatible with  ratings  in  Section  III.   The
comments in both Sections  V  (Rater’s  Comments  and  VI  (Indorser’s
Comments) support the ratings in Section III.

The applicant contends the EPR was not filed in his record  within  30
days of his permanent change of station (PCS) move.  While PCS reports
were to be filed in the member’s record prior  to  PCS,  DPPPAB  notes
that the applicant arrived at his new duty station on 1 Jul  92,  some
129 days after the closeout date of the contested EPR.   As  the  ERAB
pointed out in their 6 Jul 98 decision letter,  “late  filing  of  the
report does not, in itself, make the report factually  incorrect,  nor
would it be justification to void a report.”

The applicant further asserts the  contested  EPR  was  altered  using
correction fluid in Section I (Ratee Identification  Data),  blocks  7
and 8; and in the date element in Sections  V  and  VI.   The  use  of
correction fluid is not prohibited in the areas identified above.

While the applicant contends the contested EPR  is  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 EPR 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.

Applicant believes his rater was prejudiced against him because he had
received two STEP promotions and “made this EPR a personal mission  to
ruin   my   career.”    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.
To convince the Board that an evaluator was  unfavorably  biased,  you
must cite specific examples  of  the  conflict  or  bias  and  provide
firsthand evidence that clearly shows how the conflict  prevented  the
evaluator  from  preparing  a  fair  and  accurate  report.   In  this
instance, the applicant has provided no evidence to  prove  his  rater
was out to ruin his career.

DPPPAB does not agree with the  applicant  that  he  would  have  been
promoted to technical sergeant in 1990 versus 1993 had it not been for
the report in question.  They concur with DPPPWB’s 17 Jul 98  advisory
that the removal or upgrading of the overall  rating  of  this  report
would not make the applicant a selectee to technical sergeant for  the
1990 promotion cycle since it was not eligible  for  consideration  in
the promotion process.

DPPPAB states 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.   In
the absence of information from evaluators, official substantiation of
error or injustice from the Inspector General (IG) or  Social  Actions
is appropriate, but not provided in this case.  The applicant included
a memorandum from an  individual  outside  the  rating  chain  of  the
contested EPR.  While that individual is entitled to  his  opinion  of
the applicant and his duty performance, DPPPAB does not believe he was
in a better position to evaluate  applicant’s  duty  performance  than
those who were specifically charged with that responsibility.

DPPPAB further indicated that it is obvious the  errors  claimed  here
were discoverable at the time they occurred.  While they understand it
sometimes takes months to locate retirees,  they  do  not  believe  it
takes 7 plus years in most  instances.   More  importantly,  applicant
does not admit he underwent extraordinary circumstances over the  past
7 years that would have precluded  him  from  filing  earlier.   While
DPPPPAB  would  normally  recommend  the  application  be  denied   as
untimely, they are aware that the AFBCMR has determined it must adhere
to the decision in the  case  of  Detweiler  v.  Pena  which  prevents
applications of the statute’s time bar  if  the  applicant  has  filed
within 3 years of separation or retirement.  DPPPAB recommends  denial
due to lack of merit.

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

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Applicant reviewed the Air Force evaluations  and  provided  a  2-page
response.

Applicant’s  complete  response,  with  attachments,  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 not timely filed;  however,  it  is  in  the
interest of justice to excuse the failure to timely file.

3.    Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate
the existence of probable error or injustice.  After a thorough review
of the evidence of record  and  applicant’s  submission,  we  are  not
persuaded that the contested EPR should be declared void  and  removed
from his records.  His contentions are duly noted; however, we do  not
find these assertions, in and by themselves,  sufficiently  persuasive
to override the rationale provided by the  Air  Force.   We  therefore
agree with the recommendation of the Air Force and adopt the rationale
expressed as the basis for our decision that the applicant has  failed
to sustain his burden that he has  suffered  either  an  error  or  an
injustice.  Therefore,  we  find  no  compelling  basis  to  recommend
granting the relief sought.

_________________________________________________________________

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 25 March 1999, under the provisions of Air  Force
Instruction 36-2603:

                  Ms. Cathlynn Sparks, Panel Chair
                  Mr. Steven A. Shaw, Member
                  Mr. Mike Novel, Member
                Mrs. Joyce Earley, Examiner (without vote)

The following documentary evidence was considered:

     Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 10 Jun 98, w/atchs.
     Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
     Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPWB, dated 17 Jul 98.
     Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPAB, dated 21 Jul 98, w/atchs.
     Exhibit E.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 10 Aug 98.
     Exhibit F.  Letter fr applicant, dated 18 Aug 98, w/atchs.




                                   CATHLYNN SPARKS
                                   Panel Chair