RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  98-02152
            INDEX CODE:  111.02

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO


_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

The Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) rendered for the period 2 Aug 94
to 1 Aug 95 be declared void and removed from her records.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The Secretary  of  the  Air  Force  Inspector  General  validated  her
accusations of unequal treatment and stated that there was  a  decided
difference in assessment over her  duty  performance  and  a  lack  of
evidence to indicate her  performance  was  a  problem  prior  to  her
pregnancy.

The performance feedback her supervisor provided was not consistent.

Three identical statements of job  accomplishment  from  her  previous
evaluation report were restated on the contested report.

During the time she was pregnant, there was no  account  of  her  duty
performance or duty related accomplishments on the contested report (7
out of 12 months of the reporting period).

In support of her appeal, the applicant provided a personal statement,
an Inspector General (IG) Summary Report of Investigation,  copies  of
the contested report and performance feedback  worksheets,  and  other
documents associated with the matter under review.

Applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Information extracted from the personnel data  system  (PDS)  reflects
that the applicant is currently serving on active duty in the grade of
technical sergeant, having been promoted to that grade on 1 Apr 96.

Applicant's APR/EPR profile since 1987 follows:

     PERIOD ENDING                            EVALUATION

            30 Jun 87        9
             8 Jun 88        9
            25 Feb 89        9
             7 May 90        4 (EPR)
        7 May 91       4
        9 Sep 91       5
            30 Apr 92        5
            21 Nov 92        5
            21 Nov 93        5
             1 Aug 94        5
  *    1 Aug 95        4
             1 Aug 96        5
            17 Jan 97        5
            17 Jan 98        5

* Contested reports.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The Enlisted  Promotion  and  Military  Testing  Branch,  AFPC/DPPPWB,
reviewed this application and  indicated  that  should  the  contested
report be voided or upgraded, providing she is otherwise eligible, the
applicant would be entitled to  supplemental  promotion  consideration
beginning with cycle 98E7.  According to DPPPWB, the  applicant  would
not be selected for promotion during cycle  98E7  if  her  request  is
granted.  The report would not be considered again  in  the  promotion
process  until  cycle  99E7.   Promotions  for  this  cycle  will   be
accomplished during the May/Jun 99 time frame.

A complete copy of the DPPPWB evaluation is at Exhibit B.

The BCMR and SSB Section, AFPC/DPPPAB, reviewed this  application  and
recommended denial.  According to DPPPAB, it is Air Force policy  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—not only for support, but for
clarification/explanation.   The  applicant  did   not   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 IG or Social Actions is appropriate.   The
applicant, fearful of retribution, did not file an appeal with the  IG
until one year after the events occurred.  DPPPAB noted that a copy of
the SROI was included with her appeal.

DPPPAB noted the applicant’s belief that her rater allowed his opinion
of her to influence his evaluation of her duty performance.  According
to DPPPAB, the SAF/IG findings indicated  that  there  was  a  decided
difference in the assessment over the applicant’s duty performance and
a lack of evidence to indicate the performance was a problem prior  to
her becoming pregnant.  However, it is not uncommon for  disagreements
or personality conflicts to occur  between  an  evaluator  and  ratee.
Since a ratee 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.  The applicant  failed  to  include
statements from any of the other evaluators from the contested report.
  Therefore,  DPPPAB  stated  that  they  concluded  the  report   was
accomplished in accordance with governing directives.

DPPPAB noted the applicant’s contention that the contested report  was
an inaccurate assessment of her duty  performance  because  her  rater
failed to include her  most  recent  accomplishments  on  the  report.
According  to  DPPPAB,  Air  Force  policy  charges  a  rater  to  get
meaningful information from the ratee and as many sources as  possible
and it is the  rater’s  ultimate  responsibility  to  determine  which
accomplishments are included on the EPR.  It is also up to  the  rater
to determine whether or not it is  necessary  for  him/her  to  gather
additional information from  other  sources  in  order  to  render  an
accurate assessment of the individual.  In this  instance,  the  rater
considered  he  had  sufficient  knowledge  of  the  applicant’s  duty
performance to  render  an  accurate  assessment.   DPPPAB  noted  the
SAF/IG’s SROI found her allegation regarding unequal treatment by  her
supervisor substantiated,  but  determined  the  allegation  that  her
supervisor provided an unjustified EPR rating was  not  substantiated.
Further, nothing has been presented to demonstrate the evaluators were
incapable  of  providing  a  fair  and  accurate  assessment  of   the
applicant’s duty performance.

DPPPAB noted the applicant’s allegation that her rater’s  comments  on
the EPR were inconsistent with  those  annotated  on  her  performance
feedback worksheets  (PFWs).   The  applicant  also  opined  that  her
evaluator often gave her conflicting feedback.  DPPPAB indicated  that
the purpose of the feedback session is to give the ratee direction and
to define performance expectations for the rating period in  question.
If the feedback the applicant received from her rater was confusing to
her, she should have asked for clarification.  Feedback is designed to
provide the ratee with the opportunity to improve duty performance, if
necessary, before the  EPR  is  written.   The  applicant  received  a
performance feedback in May, some three months prior to  the  closeout
date of the EPR.  No one, except members  of  her  rating  chain,  can
determine if her performance over those final three  months  improved.
It is apparent her duty performance did not improve as  her  evaluator
gave her a “4” promotion recommendation in Section IV of the EPR.  The
rater who prepares the PFW may use the PFW as an aid in preparing  the
EPR and, if applicable, subsequent feedback  sessions.   According  to
DPPPAB, ratings on the PFW  are  not  an  absolute  indicator  of  EPR
ratings or potential for serving in a higher grade.

A complete copy of the DPPPAB evaluation is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to applicant on  28
Sep 98 for review and response.  As of this date, no response has been
received by this office (Exhibit D).

_________________________________________________________________

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, after a review of all the  available  evidence,  we  are  not
persuaded that her evaluators were unable to render  fair  and  honest
assessments of her performance, or,  that  the  contested  report  was
based on factors other than her performance.  While we did  note  that
the IG substantiated  her  allegation  of  unequal  treatment  by  her
supervisor, we also noted that  her  allegation  that  her  supervisor
provided her an unjustified EPR rating was not substantiated.  In view
of the above, and in  the  absence  of  more  clear-cut  evidence,  we
conclude that no basis exists to recommend granting the relief  sought
in this application.

_________________________________________________________________

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 28 Jan 99, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

      Mrs. Barbara A. Westgate, Panel Chair
      Mr. Kenneth L. Reinertson, Member
      Mr. Henry Romo, Jr., Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 28 Jul 98, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPWB, dated 24 Aug 98.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPAB, dated 14 Sep 98.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 28 Sep 98.




                                   BARBARA A. WESTGATE
                                   Panel Chair