RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:                 DOCKET NUMBER:  98-02111
                       INDEX CODE:  111.02

                       COUNSEL:  NONE

                       HEARING DESIRED:  NO


_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His Enlisted Performance Report (EPR), rendered for the period  31 May
95 through 28 Mar 96, be upgraded or declared void  and  removed  from
his records.
_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He should have received a change of reporting official  (CRO)  EPR  in
Dec 95.  The indorser on the contested report did not have  first-hand
knowledge of his duty performance,  had  insufficient  supervision  to
evaluate his duty performance, and thought he was indorsing an overall
“5” rating not a “4.”

In support of his request, the applicant submits a personal statement,
statements  from  his  rating  chain,  a  copy  of  his  AFI   36-2401
application, with additional  documents  associated  with  the  issues
cited in his contentions.  These documents are appended at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant contracted his initial enlistment in the Regular  Air  Force
on 18 Mar 80.  He has been progressively  promoted  to  the  grade  of
staff sergeant (E-5), with an effective date and date of rank of 1 Apr
85.

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

            Period Ending    Evaluation

              21 Mar 90      2 - Marginal Performer (Referral EPR)
              21 Mar 91      4 - Ready for Promotion
              21 Mar 92      5 - Ready for Immediate Promotion
              22 Apr 93      5
              22 Apr 94      5
              30 Nov 94      4
              30 May 95      5
            * 28 Mar 96      4
              28 Mar 97      5
              28 Mar 98      4

* Contested report

The Evaluation Report Appeal Board (ERAB) considered a similar  appeal
by the applicant, under Air Force Instruction (AFI) 36-2401, and, on 3
Sep 97, denied his request to upgrade the promotion recommendation  on
the contested report.
_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The Enlisted Promotion Branch, HQ AFPC/DPPPWB, stated that  the  first
time the contested report was considered in the promotion process  was
Cycle 97E6 to technical sergeant (E-6), promotions effective Aug 97  -
Jul 98.  Should the Board upgrade the overall rating to a “5” or  void
the report in its entirety, providing he is  otherwise  eligible,  the
applicant will be entitled  to  supplemental  promotion  consideration
commencing with Cycle 97E6.  It  is  noted  that  the  applicant  will
become a selectee for promotion during this cycle if the Board  grants
his request, pending a  favorable  data  verification  check  and  the
recommendation of his commander.  They defer to the recommendation  of
AFMPC/DPPPAB (Exhibit C).

The Directorate  of  Personnel  Program  Management,  HQ  AFPC/DPPPAB,
reviewed this application and recommended denial.  DPPPAB stated  that
if the rater believed the applicant’s duty performance warranted a “5”
promotion recommendation, he should have marked the appropriate  block
in spite of “pressure” he thought he would incur from  his  rater  and
commander.  If the rater’s rater or commander  disagreed,  they  could
have  marked  the  “nonconcur”  block   and   provided   comments   as
appropriate, including one or more specific reasons  for  disagreeing,
and initiated the blocks they determined appropriate.  DPPPAB believes
the rater appropriately evaluated the applicant and avoided  inflating
the overall promotion recommendation.

With regard to the applicant’s contentions  concerning  the  indorser,
DPPPAB stated that the short length of time the indorser  was  in  the
role before the closeout date of the report is not an issue since  Air
Force policy allows evaluators, other than the rater, to  be  assigned
at any point.  In accordance with the governing Air Force instruction,
evaluators, other than raters, can  be  assigned  after  the  report’s
closeout date and still sign the report.   Subsequent  evaluators  are
not required to have “first-hand knowledge” of the  ratee  -  if  they
feel their knowledge is insufficient, they may obtain information from
other reliable sources.  Evaluators are required to enter ratings  (X)
only when signing the EPR to prevent others  from  entering  incorrect
ratings.

DPPPAB disagrees with the applicant’s belief  that  he  had  earned  a
promotion to the grade of technical sergeant (E-6) and that the  Board
should  allow  him  to  regain  his  promotion.   DPPPAB  stated  that
promotion releases  are  made  annually  and  are  contingent  upon  a
favorable comparison between data in the Personnel Data  System  (PDS)
and the data on file in  the  member’s  Unit  Personnel  Record  Group
(UPRG).  Tentative selectees are notified on the release date of their
promotion status, but are also told it is not official until the  data
verification has been  completed  at  his  military  personnel  flight
(MPF).  It is obvious the  data  in  PDS  did  not  match  the  source
documents on file  in  his  UPRG.   DPPPAB  believes  the  applicant’s
request to “regain” his promotion is unfounded because  the  promotion
was never “taken away” from him because he never earned it.

DPPPAB stated  that  the  applicant’s  contention  that  a  Change  of
Reporting Official (CRO) EPR should have been rendered in  Dec  95  is
without merit.  The applicant was serving on temporary duty (TDY) from
21 Jan 96 through 14 May  96.   The  applicant  did  not  provide  any
support from his commander to prove he met the criteria under Rule 11,
note 15 of AFI 36-2403 that would warrant a CRO EPR.  Furthermore, the
applicant has not  provided  any  documentation  to  prove  the  rater
changed as a result of a permanent change of station, permanent change
of assignment or an approved change of designated rater.

DPPPAB indicated that comparing the ratings on the EPR to the markings
on  the  Performance  Feedback  Worksheet  (PFW)   are   inappropriate
comparisons and  inconsistent  with  the  Enlisted  Evaluation  System
(EES).  The rater who prepares the  PFW  may  use  it  as  an  aid  in
preparing the EPR.  DPPPAB stated that the PFW  acts  as  a  scale  on
where the ratee stands in relation to the performance expectations  of
the  rater.   A  PFW  with  all  items  marked  “needs  little  or  no
improvement” means the ratee is meeting  the  rater’s  standards.   It
does not guarantee a firewalled EPR.

A complete copy of this evaluation is appended at Exhibit D.
_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to applicant on  18
November 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.  Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented  to  demonstrate
the existence of probable error or injustice.  We took notice  of  the
applicant's complete submission in judging the  merits  of  the  case;
however, we agree with the opinions  and  recommendation  of  the  Air
Force office of primary responsibility, HQ AFPC/DPPPAB, and adopt  the
rationale expressed as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant
failed to sustain his burden of establishing the existence  of  either
an error or an injustice.  Therefore, absent  sufficient  evidence  to
the contrary, we find no compelling basis to  recommend  granting  the
relief sought in this application.
_________________________________________________________________

RECOMMENDATION OF THE BOARD:

A majority of the  panel  finds  insufficient  evidence  of  error  or
injustice and recommends the application be denied.
_________________________________________________________________

The following members of the  Board  considered  this  application  in
Executive Session on 1 April 1999, under the  provisions  of  AFI  36-
2603:

                  Mr. Vaughn E. Schlunz, Panel Chair
                  Mr. Philip Sheuerman, Member
                  Ms. Patricia D. Vestal, Member

By a majority vote, Mr. Schlunz and Ms. Vestal voted to deny applicant's
request.  Mr. Sheuerman voted to grant the applicant's request  but  did
not desire to submit  a  minority  report.   The  following  documentary
evidence was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 7 Jul 98, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPPWB, dated 16 Oct 98.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPPAB, dated 29 Oct 98.
   Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 16 Nov 98.




                                   VAUGHN E. SCHLUNZ
                                   Panel Chair


AFBCMR 98-02111




MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, AIR FORCE BOARD
                  FOR  CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS (AFBCMR)

SUBJECT:  AFBCMR Application of APPLICANT

      I have carefully reviewed all aspects of this case and do not
agree with the opinion of the majority of the panel that the
applicant’s request for voidance of the Enlisted Performance Report
(EPR) closing 28 March 1996 should be denied.

      I am persuaded by the statement from the rater of the contested
report, who had first-hand knowledge of applicant’s performance, that
the ratings assigned on the report are inaccurate.  By regulation,
this individual had the right and the responsibility to rate the
applicant’s performance, honestly and to the best of his ability.  The
evidence suggests that he was unable to do so because he felt coerced
into rating the applicant a “4” instead of the “5” rating he deserved.
 In addition, after reviewing the circumstances, the final indorser
and commander stated that the contested report is not an accurate
reflection of the applicant’s performance and are in support of the
applicant’s request.  Inasmuch as the contested report was based on
factors other than the applicant’s performance and demonstrated
potential, I do not believe the applicant received a fair evaluation.

      Based on the above, I am resolving any doubt concerning the
accuracy of this report in the applicant’s favor.  Therefore, I agree
with the minority member of the panel and direct that the contested
EPR be declared void and the applicant receive the appropriate
supplemental consideration for promotion to the grade of technical
sergeant.




                                                            JOE     G.
LINEBERGER
                                                         Director
                                                           Air   Force
Review Boards Agency



AFBCMR 98-02111
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 Enlisted
Performance Report, AF Form 910, rendered for the period 31 May 1995
through 28 March 1996, 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 technical sergeant for all
appropriate cycles beginning with Cycle 97E6.

      If selected for promotion to the grade of technical sergeant
by supplemental consideration, he be provided any additional
supplemental consideration required as a result of that selection,
if applicable.

      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