RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:                 DOCKET NUMBER:  98-02022
                       INDEX CODE:  111.02

                       COUNSEL:  NONE

                       HEARING DESIRED:  NO


_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His  Enlisted  Performance  Report  (EPR),  rendered  for  the  period
1 December 1994 through 30 November 1995, be declared void and removed
from his records.
_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The contested report is unjust because  the  rater  who  rendered  the
report was not his rater when the report closed out on 30 Nov 95.  The
report was downgraded after a disagreement between him and his  rating
chain.  He did not advocate participation in any questionable  pyramid
scheme as indicated in Sections VI and VII of  the  contested  report.
The contested report was used as a punishment tool.

In support of his request, the applicant submits copies of his AFR 31-
11 applications, with attachments (Exhibit A).
_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Information extracted from the Personnel Data System (PDS) reveals the
applicant’s Total Active Federal Military Service Date (TAFMSD) as  18
September 1979.  He is currently serving on active duty in  the  grade
of senior master sergeant, with an effective date of rank and date  of
rank of 1 October 1996.

Applicant's profile for the last 10 reporting periods follows:

            Period Ending    Evaluation

              24 Jun 90      5 - Immediate Promotion
              21 Apr 91      5
              21 Apr 92      5
              21 Apr 93      5
              30 Nov 93      5
              30 Nov 94      5
            * 30 Nov 95      5
              30 Nov 96      5
              30 Nov 97      5
              15 May 98      5

* Contested report

Similar appeals by the applicant, under Air Force Instruction (AFI) 36-
2401, were considered and denied by the Evaluation Report Appeal Board
(ERAB) on 28 June 1996 and 29 January 1998.
_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The Enlisted Promotion &  Military  Testing  Branch,  HQ  AFPC/DPPPWB,
stated that based on the applicant’s date of  rank  (DOR)  for  senior
master sergeant (E-8), the first time the  contested  report  will  be
considered in the promotion process is  Cycle  98E9  to  chief  master
sergeant (E-9), promotions effective Jan 99  -  Dec  99.   Should  the
Board void the report in its entirety or make  any  other  significant
change, providing he is otherwise  eligible,  the  applicant  will  be
entitled to supplemental promotion consideration beginning with  Cycle
98E9, providing he is not selected  during  the  initial  98E9  cycle.
Promotions for this cycle will be announced during  the  Nov  98  time
frame.  They defer to the recommendation of HQ AFPC/DPPPAB.  A copy of
this evaluation is appended at Exhibit C.

The Directorate  of  Personnel  Program  Management,  HQ  AFPC/DPPPAB,
stated   that   the   applicant   has   failed    to    provide    any
information/support from the rating chain.  He claims the  rater  from
the report was removed for cause in Oct  95;  however,  the  Inspector
General’s (IG) Summary Report of Investigation (SROI) states the rater
was removed from civil service in Jan 96, not Oct 95.   The  applicant
indicated that his former commander (rater’s rater) is out of the  Air
Force now and he has no way to contact him for a  reaccomplished  EPR.
DPPPAB stated that while it is true his former commander  is  retired,
it is not true he has no way to contact  him.   AFI  36-2401  provides
instructions on how to contact retirees in order to gain their support
for an appeal.  DPPPAB indicated that the indorser  of  the  contested
report is still on active duty.   The  applicant  claims  he  was  the
anonymous source who implicated his rater’s involvement in an  illegal
pyramid scheme to the IG.  After a disagreement between  him  and  the
members of his rating chain, the closeout date of the EPR was extended
from 15 Sep 95 to 30 Nov 95.  DPPPAB indicated that commanders have an
obligation to extend the closeout date of EPRs to permit recording  of
significant events.  The  applicant  alleges  that  his  rating  chain
reaccomplished the EPR and falsely implicated him as a participant  in
the scheme to punish him for giving information to the  IG.   However,
he did not include any statements from members of his rating chain  to
support his contentions.  The IG’s SROI does not specifically  mention
the applicant’s name or that he  was  cleared.   Other  than  his  own
opinion, the applicant has failed to include any evidence  the  report
was not accomplished in direct accordance with applicable regulations.
 Based on the lack  of  evidence  provided,  DPPPAB  recommend  denial
(Exhibit D).
_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to applicant on  14
September 1998 for review and response.  As of this date, no  response
has been received by this office (Exhibit E).
_________________________________________________________________

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.   We  took  notice   of
applicant’s complete submission in judging the  merits  of  the  case,
including  the  Summary  Report  of  Investigation  (SROI).   In  this
respect, we note that the investigating  officer  indicated  that  the
reports of the Office of Special Investigations, which the  commanders
relied on to identify those who should be punished, did not accurately
portray the complete picture of the illegal pyramid activity at  March
AFB.  In addition, aside from the mention of an anonymous source,  the
applicant was not identified as an advocate for  the  pyramid  scheme.
Other than for the comments made on the contested report, we have seen
no substantial evidence to convince us  the  applicant  supported  the
illegal pyramid scheme.  In view of the circumstances involved, and in
an effort to offset any possibility of an injustice, we recommend that
the contested report be declared void and removed from the applicant’s
records and he be given supplemental promotion consideration  for  all
appropriate cycles for which the now voided report  was  a  matter  of
record.
_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT:

The pertinent military records of the  Department  of  the  Air  Force
relating to APPLICANT be corrected to show that  the  Senior  Enlisted
Performance Report (MSGT thru CMSGT), AF Form 911,  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  chief  master  sergeant
for all appropriate cycles beginning with Cycle 98E9.

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  qualifications  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  he  was  promoted  to  the
higher grade on the date of rank  established  by  the  supplemental
promotion and that he  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 18 February 1999, under the provisions of AFI 36-
2603:

                  Mr. Richard A. Peterson, Panel Chair
                  Mr. Terry A. Yonkers, Member
              Ms. Peggy E. Gordon, Member

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

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 21 May 98, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPPWB, dated 9 Aug 98.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPPAB, dated 31 Aug 98.
   Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 14 Sep 98.




                                   RICHARD A. PETERSON
                                   Panel Chair


AFBCMR 98-02022
INDEX CODE:  111.02



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 Senior
Enlisted Performance Report (MSGT thru CMSGT), AF Form 911, 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 chief master sergeant for
all appropriate cycles beginning with Cycle 98E9.

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





            JOE G. LINEBERGER
                                        Director
                                        Air Force Review Boards Agency