RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  98-02384
                             INDEX CODE:  111.05

                             COUNSEL:  NONE

                             HEARING DESIRED:  NO


_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

The Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) rendered for the period 27 March  1995
through 15 September 1995 be declared void and removed from her records  or,
in the alternative, the feedback date of 30 May 1995 in  Section  V  of  the
report be deleted.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

She firmly believes the rating she was given did not accurately reflect  her
performance during  the  contested  period.   A  personal  conflict  existed
between the rater and herself which with the  supporting  evidence  provided
will show that the rating  given  was  unjust.   In  addition,  this  report
contains a false statement (feedback date of 30 May  1995)  as  verified  by
her commander and rater’s rater.  No written feedback occurred  during  this
period.

In support of the appeal, applicant submits a statement  from  the  indorser
stating that when he prepared his endorsement he  did  so  with  the  belief
that the feedback session had been accomplished as reflected on the  report,
and because of this he believed that the rater had met  when  he  considered
an obligation of making the ratee aware of her performance, or in this  case
a decline in performance.  However, he has confirmed  with  the  rater  that
the feedback session did not take place, and that there is  no  evidence  of
any documentation to indicate that a decline in performance was  brought  to
the ratee’s attention.  He also submits from  the  reviewing  commander  who
indicates that after consulting with the rater, she confirmed  to  him  that
she did not give formal feedback on the  date  specified  on  the  contested
EPR, but had given feedback informally throughout the  period-never  telling
applicant specifically that she would not get a 5.

Applicant's complete submission is attached at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant is currently serving in the Regular Air Force in the grade  of
technical sergeant.

The applicant filed  two  similar  appeals  under  AFI  36-2401,  Correcting
Officer and Enlisted Performance Reports.  The first appeal was  denied  and
the second  application  was  returned  without  action  by  the  Evaluation
Reports Appeal Board (ERAB).

EPR profile since 1991 reflects the following:

      PERIOD ENDING    EVALUATION OF POTENTIAL

        26 Mar 91                 4
        26 Mar 92                 5
        26 Mar 93                 5
        26 Mar 94                 5
       *15 Sep 95                 4
        26 Mar 95                 5
        11 Aug 96                 5
        11 Aug 97                 5
        11 Aug 98                 5

*  Contested report.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The Chief, BCMR and SSB Section, AFPC/DPPPAB, reviewed this application  and
states that the applicant provided statements  from  the  indorser  and  the
reviewing commander who states that he admits if he had known the  applicant
was unaware she was getting a “4” on the contested report, and the  feedback
session in May had not been conducted,  he  wouldn’t  have  made  the  rater
upgrade her “4” promotion recommendation to a  “5,”  and  he  wouldn’t  have
upgraded the  report  himself.   He  also  admits  he  would  have  strongly
considered nonconcurring, but does not state he  would  have  non-concurred.
They point out that while  it  is  true  the  applicant  received  only  one
feedback session during the reporting period, it  does  not  invalidate  the
report.  The fact the applicant submitted evidence to substantiate a  second
feedback session did not occur does not make the EPR erroneous.  It was  the
applicant’s responsibility to alert her rater’s rater if a feedback  session
did  not  occur.   Lack  of  counseling  or  feedback,  by  itself,  is  not
sufficient to challenge the accuracy or justness of a report.  In  reference
to the applicant claiming a personality conflict  existed  between  she  and
her rater, they state that it is not uncommon  for  disagreements  to  occur
between a rater 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 or that a personality conflict  exists.   They  state,  however,  the
conflict generated  by  this  personal  attention  is  usually  professional
rather than personal.   In  this  case,  the  applicant  failed  to  include
statements from any of  the  other  evaluators  from  the  contested  report
affirming a personality conflict existed.  They further  state  that  it  is
not feasible to compare one report covering a certain period  of  time  with
another report covering a different period of time.  As a  matter  of  fact,
they note the rater on  the  contested  EPR  is  the  same  rater  from  the
previous reporting period in which she received a “5.”  It is their  opinion
that the rater was very familiar  with  the  applicant’s  duty  performance;
however, the rater apparently  noted  a  decline  in  the  applicant’s  duty
performance and appropriately  documented  it.   They  state,  the  EPR  was
designed to provide a rating for a specific period  of  time  based  on  the
performance noted during that period, not  based  on  previous  performance.
Therefore,  based  on  the  evidence  provided,  they  recommend  denial  of
applicant's request.

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

The  Chief,  Inquiries/AFBCMR  Section,  AFPC/DPPPWB,  also  reviewed   this
application and states that should the Board void the  contested  report  in
its entirety, upgrade the overall rating,  or  make  any  other  significant
change, providing the applicant is otherwise eligible,  the  applicant  will
be entitled to supplemental promotion consideration  commencing  with  cycle
98E7.  However, she will not become a select during this cycle.

A complete copy of their evaluation is attached at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant reviewed the advisory opinions and states that basically,  her
performance during this period amounts to  her  word  against  the  rater’s.
Her appeal package is very honest and truthful.  She didn’t coax  anyone  to
say something that wasn’t true or make up events that  didn’t  happen.   But
on the other hand, the rater,  a  senior  NCO,  someone  she  once  trusted,
falsified  an  official  Air  Force  document.   She  knows  that  she   may
ultimately pay the price for failing to ensure that a feedback  session  was
conducted and documented.  It was stupid on her part, and she  believes  she
has learned a hard lesson.  She states that her failure to  enusre  feedback
was conducted does not compare to the rater’s  actions.   The  rater  failed
her by not being honest with her about her  view  of  her  performance,  she
didn’t give her time for improvement prior to this CRO report, she  deceived
her evaluators, falsified an official record, and lastly she undermined  the
entire purpose of the feedback system.

Applicant's complete response, with attachments, is attached at Exhibit F.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

1.    The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by existing laws  or
regulations.

2.    The application was timely filed.

3.    Sufficient relevant evidence has been  presented  to  demonstrate  the
existence  of  probable   error   or   injustice.    After   reviewing   the
documentation submitted, we believe that the  contested  report  is  not  an
accurate  assessment  of  applicant's  performance  during  the  period   in
question.  In this respect,  we  note  the  statements  submitted  from  the
indorser and the  commander  indicating  that  the  rater  did  not  provide
performance feedback as indicated on the contested  report.   The  commander
also states that he would not have asked the  rater  to  change  her  rating
because raters call them as they see  them.   However,  he  would  have,  at
least, considered very strongly non-concurring with the rating.  In view  of
the foregoing and in an effort to remove any possibility of an injustice  to
the applicant, we recommend that the contested report be declared  void  and
removed from her records.

_________________________________________________________________

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 27 March 1995 through 15  September  1995,
be declared void and removed from her records.

_________________________________________________________________

The following members of the Board considered this application in  Executive
Session on 16 February 1999, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

                 Ms. Charlene M. Bradley, Panel Chair
                 Mr. Mike Novel, Member
                 Mr. Philip R. Sheuerman, Member
                 Ms. Phyllis L. Spence, Examiner (without vote)

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

      Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 12 Aug 98, w/atchs.
      Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
      Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPPPAB, dated 14 Sep 98.
      Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/DPPPWB, dated 28 Aug 98.
      Exhibit E. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 28 Sep 98.
      Exhibit F. Applicant’s Response, dated 16 Oct 98.




                             CHARLENE M. BRADLEY
                             Panel Chair