RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  98-02342
            INDEX CODE:  111.02

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO


_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

The closeout date of his Enlisted Performance  Report  (EPR)  rendered
for the period 12 Mar 96 through 11 Mar 97 be changed from 11  Mar  97
to 7 Oct 96, and the reason for the report be changed from “Annual” to
“CRO” (Change of Reporting Official).

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

Changing the closeout date would reflect that he was  given  a  timely
and fair report.  The contested report was an  oversight  between  the
orderly room and his supervisor.  The EPR  closed  out  as  an  annual
instead of a CRO, which it should have been.  The  untimely  EPR  cost
him a promotion to the grade of master sergeant for the 97E7 cycle.

In support of his appeal, the applicant provided a personal  statement
and supportive statements, to include statements  from  the  reviewing
commander and indorser of the contested report.

Applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Information extracted from the Personnel Data System  (PDS)  indicates
that the applicant is currently serving on active duty in the grade of
master sergeant, having been promoted to that grade on 1 Oct 98.   His
Total Active Federal Military Service Date (TAFMSD) is 7 Dec 78

Applicant's APR/EPR profile, as reflected in the PDS, follows:

      PERIOD ENDING    EVALUATION

       6 Aug 88        9
      16 May 89        9
      16 May 90        4 (EPR)
      25 Nov 90        5
      25 Nov 91        5
      25 Nov 92        4
       8 Jun 93        5
      11 Mar 94        4
      11 Mar 95        5
      11 Mar 96        5
  *   11 Mar 97        5
      11 Mar 98        5

* Contested report.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The Enlisted  Promotion  and  Military  Testing  Branch,  AFPC/DPPPWB,
reviewed this application and indicated that should the closeout  date
be changed from 11 Mar 97 to 7 Oct 96, it would be eligible to be used
in the promotion process for the 97E7 cycle (promotions effective  Aug
97 - Jul 98).  The applicant would become a selectee for promotion  to
the grade of master sergeant pending  a  favorable  data  verification
review and the recommendation of his commander.

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  failed  to  provide   any
information from the rater of the EPR but provided a  memorandum  from
the indorser and three memorandums from the reviewing commander of the
contested EPR.  None of the documentation  proved  the  report  should
have closed out prior to the Promotion Eligibility Cut-Off Date (PECD)
for the 97E7 cycle.  In fact, since the commander no  longer  has  any
official  record  to  substantiate  the  exact  date   the   applicant
permanently moved to his new position, it is  impossible  for  him  to
recall the specific date the applicant moved  as  memories  fade  over
time.  He offered an “educated guess”  and  admitted  to  implementing
safeguards to ensure this sort of thing does not happen again.

DPPPAB indicated that evaluation reports are  considered  accurate  as
written unless substantial evidence to the contrary is  provided.   As
such, they receive exhaustive reviews prior to becoming  a  matter  of
record.  Any report can be rewritten  to  be  more  hard  hitting,  to
provide embellishments, or enhance the  ratee’s  promotion  potential.
But the time to do that is before  the  report  becomes  a  matter  of
record.  None of the supporters of the  applicant’s  appeal  explained
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 or why they did not change the date and reason  on  the  EPR
shell when it was produced sixty days prior to the date the EPR closed
out.  More importantly, if the Board were  to  grant  the  applicant’s
request to change the closeout date and reason  for  the  EPR,  DPPPAB
believes it would be unfair to all the other nonselects who  moved  to
other duty sections prior to the PECD date but had annual EPRs closing
out after the PECD date.  In DPPPAB’s view, the appeals  process  does
not exist to recreate history or enhance chances  for  promotion.   It
appears  this  is  exactly  what  the  applicant’s  is  attempting  to
do—recreate history.

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


_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to applicant on  14
Sep 98 for review and response.  As of this date, no response has been
received by this office (Exhibit D).

Supportive statements provided in the applicant’s behalf, to include a
statement from the rater of the  contested  report,  are  attached  at
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.   Based  on  the  evidence
presented, we believe  sufficient  doubt  has  been  raised  regarding
whether the reason for the report in question should have  been  based
on a change of reporting official rather than an  annual  report.   We
took particular note  of  the  statements  from  the  members  of  the
applicant’s rating chain and his commander supporting  his  contention
that the report should have been accomplished when he  was  reassigned
to another duty section in Oct 96.  We believe  any  doubt  concerning
this  matter  should  be  resolved  in   favor   of   the   applicant.
Accordingly, we recommend that the applicant’s 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, AF Form 910, rendered  for  the  period  12 Mar 96
through 11 Mar 97 be amended in Section I to show the  period  of  the
report  as  12 Mar 96 through 7 Oct  96,  the  number   of   days   of
supervision as 209 days, and the reason for the report as “CRO”;  and,
that the subsequent EPR closing 11 Mar 98 be amended in Section  I  to
show a “From” date of 8 Oct 96.

It  is  further  recommended  that   he   be   provided   supplemental
consideration for promotion to the grade of master  sergeant  for  all
appropriate cycles beginning with cycle 97E7.

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

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 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

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

     Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 20 Aug 98, w/atchs.
     Exhibit B.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPWB, dated 27 Aug 98.
     Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPAB, dated 31 Aug 98, w/atch.
     Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 14 Sep 98.
     Exhibit E.  Letters in applicant’s behalf, dated 10 Jun 97,
                 11 Jun 97, and 17 Jun 97.





                                   BARBARA A. WESTGATE
                                   Panel Chair




AFBCMR 98-02342




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    , be corrected  to  show  that  the  Enlisted
Performance Report, AF Form 910, rendered  for  the  period  12 Mar 96
through 11 Mar 97 be amended in Section I to show the  period  of  the
report  as  12 Mar 96 through 7 Oct  96,  the  number   of   days   of
supervision as 209 days, and the reason for the report as “CRO”;  and,
that the subsequent EPR closing 11 Mar 98 be amended in Section  I  to
show a “From” date of 8 Oct 96.

       It  is  further  directed  that  he  be  provided  supplemental
consideration for promotion to the grade of master  sergeant  for  all
appropriate cycles beginning with cycle 97E7.

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

      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