RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  98-01753
            INDEX NUMBER:  111.02, 111.05
            COUNSEL:  NONE


            HEARING DESIRED:  NO

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

The Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) closing 7 May  1995  be  removed
from her records.

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

She was not properly rated,  supervised,  nor  provided  the  required
feedback for the contested rating period,  8  September  1993  through
7 May 1995.

In support of her request, applicant provided copies of the  contested
report and a reaccomplished report; a statement in her behalf from her
current first sergeant; extracts from her AFI 36-2401 appeal  package,
which included supporting statements from the rater  and  indorser  on
the contested report, as well as  statements  from  her  former  first
sergeant  and  former  commander.   Also   included   were   citations
reflecting award of the Air Force Achievement  Medal  (AFAM)  for  the
period 17 Jan 95 to 12 May 95, and AFAM, First Oak Leaf  Cluster,  for
the period 1  Oct  94  to  30  Sep  95,  and  a  performance  feedback
worksheet, dated 2 August 1994.  (Exhibit A)
___________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 8 September 1993, applicant contracted her  initial  enlistment  in
the  Regular  Air  Force.   Upon  completion  of  her  contract,   she
reenlisted on 15 January 1997 for a period  of  four  years.   She  is
currently serving in the grade of staff sergeant.

Applicant’s EPR profile follows:

      PERIOD CLOSING   OVERALL EVALUATION

   *   7 May 95  4
       7 May 96  5
       7 May 97  5
       7 May 98  5
       7 May 99  5

* Contested report.  A similar appeal submitted under  the  provisions
of AFI 36-2401 was considered and denied  by  the  Evaluation  Reports
Appeal Board on 17 October 1997.

___________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The Enlisted  Promotion  and  Military  Testing  Branch,  AFPC/DPPPWB,
provided comments  addressing  supplemental  promotion  consideration.
Should the Board void the report  in  its  entirety,  or  upgrade  the
overall rating, providing she is  otherwise  eligible,  the  applicant
will be entitled to  supplemental  promotion  consideration  beginning
with cycle 97E5.  However, the applicant will not  become  a  selectee
during this cycle if the Board grants the request.  (Exhibit C)

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

DPPPA stated a similar appeal, submitted under the provisions  of  AFI
36-2401,  was  denied  by  the  Evaluation  Reports  Appeal  Board  on
17 October 1996.  The applicant has not provided any  new  information
not previously submitted under AFI  36-2401,  nor  did  she  have  the
report  reaccomplished  on  the  correct  form  with  the  appropriate
reviewing commander’s signature.

Noting the rater’s  statement  of  support,  DPPPA  stated  the  rater
indicates he decided to change his evaluation and overall rating based
on “performance feedback that was not available during the time of her
rating considerations and  post  discussions  with  one  of  her  past
supervisors.”  The rater has not stated what he knows now that he  did
not know when the original EPR was prepared.  Instead, he rewrote  and
embellished the EPR with no explanation at all.   DPPPA  believes  the
applicant is attempting to relate  the  ratings  on  the  EPR  to  the
markings  on  the  performance  feedback  worksheet.    This   is   an
inappropriate  comparison  and  is  inconsistent  with  the   Enlisted
Evaluation System (EES).

The statement of  support  from  applicant’s  current  first  sergeant
states the commander of the unit to which the applicant  was  assigned
when the contested report was rendered was  absent  when  the  initial
report was submitted, and the individual temporarily assigned to  that
position signed the report as the reviewing commander.  That  was  the
proper procedure—there was no regulatory requirement for the commander
who was absent to sign the contested EPR.  DPPPA noted, however,  that
the then-absent commander’s signature is  now  on  the  reaccomplished
report.  If the Board finds relief is appropriate (and DPPPA does  not
think  they  should),  this  EPR  should  be  reaccomplished  on   the
appropriate edition of the EPR form and the individual who signed  the
original  report  as  the  reviewing  commander  must  also  sign  the
reaccomplished version as well, as applicant was previously advised by
the ERAB.

The first sergeant also indicates the applicant was on temporary  duty
(TDY) for 118 days of the reporting period.   The  applicant  has  not
provided documentation (such as copies  of  her  travel  vouchers)  to
prove the TDYs were  for  30  or  more  consecutive  days.   Also,  no
documentation is provided which indicates when the rater assumed rater
responsibility for the applicant.  In addition,  since  this  was  her
first EPR, a letter of evaluation (LOE) could have  been  accomplished
to document her performance until the closeout date of the EPR.  There
is no documentation included with the appeal to  indicate  whether  or
not an LOE was prepared, and whether, if  prepared,  it  was  used  to
prepare the contested EPR.

None of the supporters of the applicant’s appeal explain how they were
hindered  from  rendering  a  fair  and  accurate  assessment  of  the
applicant’s performance prior to the report being  made  a  matter  of
record.  In fact, the majority of the evaluators now state  they  have
had a chance to once again review the contested report and now believe
it to be inaccurate.  They  have  not  adequately  explained  why  the
information contained in the reaccomplished version of  the  contested
EPR was not available when the reports were initially rendered.  DPPPA
noted that the reaccomplished version of the EPR has been rewritten to
include embellishments, but does not include  any  additional  factual
information.  As such, DPPPA is not convinced the contested report  is
not accurate as written, and does not support the request for  removal
and replacement.

The complete evaluation is at Exhibit D.

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Applicant stated she is requesting removal of the report, not  removal
and replacement  as  indicated  in  the  advisory  opinion.   She  has
attempted to get the contested EPR reaccomplished on the correct  form
(Jan 93 version) but has not met with any success.  In  addition,  the
unit commander who signed the initial report is retired  and  even  if
she were to get a reaccomplished report, on the proper version of  the
form, she does not know if she could  contact  him  for  a  signature.
Additionally, the indorser has PCS’d and  her  former  supervisor  has
retired.

Applicant provided a copy of her TDY travel voucher showing  that  she
was TDY for 119 consecutive days - 112 of them  during  the  contested
rating period.  Therefore, she was only supervised by her rater for 63
days of the reporting period.  She also provided documentation used in
her previous unit to update reporting officials and  duty  information
and a copy of a Performance Feedback  Notification  worksheet  showing
that the rater’s date of supervision began on 14 November 1994.

Applicant stated no LOE was accomplished.  Her rater did  contact  her
supervisor at her TDY location to query about  her  duty  performance.
She believes the fact that Beale AFB awarded  her  an  AFAM  indicates
that they were pleased with her work.

Applicant’s complete response is at Exhibit F.

___________________________________________________________________

ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The Appeals and SSB Branch, AFPC/DPPPA, provided  additional  comments
addressing applicant’s contention concerning the period of supervision
on the contested EPR.   DPPPA  stated  that  based  on  the  documents
provided by the applicant with her rebuttal, it is apparent  that  her
rater did not have the 120 days  supervision  required  to  render  an
evaluation report.  Even though there was some confusion as to exactly
how many days the  rater  actually  supervised  the  applicant,  DPPPA
determined there were not enough days  of  supervision  to  render  an
evaluation report.  As such,  they  recommend  voiding  the  contested
report.  They did not support replacing the  contested  EPR  with  the
reaccomplished report the applicant provided, stating the applicant no
longer desires to replace the contested report, as she  was  unwilling
to contact the evaluators or have the reaccomplished version  prepared
on the correct version of AF Form 910.

The complete evaluation is at Exhibit H.

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the additional Air Force evaluation  was  forwarded  to  the
applicant on 26 April 1999 for review and comment within 30 days.   As
of this date, no response has been received by this office.

___________________________________________________________________

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.
 After careful consideration of the evidence provided, it appears that
the rater did not have the 120 days of supervision required to  render
an evaluation report.  In this regard, documentation provided  by  the
applicant reflects that she was on continuous TDY  for  the  last  112
days of the contested rating period, which left the rater with only 63
days of supervision.  In view of the foregoing, we believe  any  doubt
should be resolved in the applicant’s favor  and  that  the  contested
report  should  be  declared  void  and  removed  from  her   records.
Accordingly, we recommend that the records be corrected  as  indicated
below.

___________________________________________________________________

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 (AB thru TSgt),  AF  Form  910,  rendered  for  the
period 8 September 1993 through 7  May  1995,  be  declared  void  and
removed from her records.

___________________________________________________________________

The following members of the  Board  considered  this  application  in
Executive Session on 8 July 1999, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

      Ms. Charlene M. Bradley, Panel Chair
      Ms. Sophie A. Clark, Member
      Mr. Joseph A. Roj, Member

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

     Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 17 Jun 98, w/atchs.
     Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
     Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPWB, dated 29 Jun 98.
     Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPA, dated 13 Jul 98.
     Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 3 Aug 98.
     Exhibit F.  Letter from Applicant, dated 12 Aug 98, w/atchs.
     Exhibit G.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 25 Mar 99.
     Exhibit H.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPA, dated 9 Apr 99.
     Exhibit I.  Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 26 Apr 99.




                                   CHARLENE M. BRADLEY
                                   Panel Chair




AFBCMR 98-01753




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  Enlisted
Performance Report (AB thru TSgt),  AF  Form  910,  rendered  for  the
period 8 September 1993  through  7  May  1995,  be,  and  hereby  is,
declared void and removed from her records.





            JOE G. LINEBERGER
            Director
            Air Force Review Boards Agency