RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  98-02530
            INDEX CODE:  111.02

            COUNSEL:  None

            HEARING DESIRED:  No


_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

The Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) rendered for the  period  15 Apr
96 through 14 Apr 97 be upgraded to an overall 5 rating,  or,  in  the
alternative, be declared void and removed from his records.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The contested report was unjustly rated because of a  personal  matter
between his wife and himself in Mar 97.  He believes the rating  given
was in direct response to this isolated incident, which was subjective
in nature, and that the entire rating period was not considered.

In support of his appeal, the applicant provided a personal statement,
copies of several of his EPRs, a statement from the rater and indorser
of the contested report,  and  other  documentation  relating  to  his
appeal.

Applicant’s complete submission is attached at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant’s Total Active Federal Military Service Date (TAFMSD) is
22 Feb 85.  He is currently serving in the Regular Air  Force  in  the
grade of staff sergeant, effective, and with a date of rank  (DOR)  of
1 May 92.




Applicant’s EPR profile since 1990 follows:

            PERIOD ENDING          OVERALL EVALUATION

             31 Mar 90                     5
             31 Mar 91                     5
             30 Sep 92                     5
             30 Sep 93                     5
             30 Sep 94                     5
             14 Apr 95                     5
             14 Apr 96                     5
           * 14 Apr 97                     4
             14 Apr 98                     5

     *  Contested Report.

The applicant filed a similar appeal  under  AFI  36-2401,  Correcting
Officer and Enlisted Evaluation  Reports,  which  was  denied  by  the
Evaluation Report Appeals Board (ERAB) on 24 Jul 98.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The  Chief,  Inquiries/AFBCMR  Section,  AFPC/DPPPWB,  reviewed   this
application  and  indicated  that  the  first  time  the  report   was
considered in the  promotion  process  was  cycle  98E6  to  technical
sergeant (promotions effective Aug 98 - Jul  99).   Should  the  Board
void the report in  its  entirety,  or  upgrade  the  overall  rating,
providing he is otherwise eligible, the applicant will be entitled  to
supplemental promotion consideration beginning with  cycle  98E6.   He
will become a selectee during this  cycle  if  the  Board  grants  the
request, pending a favorable data verification and the  recommendation
of the commander.

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

The Chief,  BCMR  &  SSB  Section,  AFPC/DPPPAB,  also  reviewed  this
application and indicated that the applicant was involved in  an  off-
duty domestic incident during the time the  contested  EPR  was  being
finalized.  Both the rater and indorser  contend  they  were  told  by
senior management to downgrade the EPR because their  commander  would
never agree to award the applicant  a  “5”  promotion  recommendation.
However, if the rater and indorser believed the applicant  deserved  a
“5” rating, they should have gone to bat for him and marked the blocks
they felt appropriate.  AFI  36-2402,  paragraphs  4.8.5  and  4.11.4,
outline  established  procedures  to  document   differences   between
evaluators.  It appears this appeal is simply an effort to  remove  an
“undesirable” report.  DPPPAB understands the  applicant’s  desire  to
have the EPR removed because of the promotion advantage; however, they
strongly recommend his request be denied.

DPPPAB indicated that Air Force policy is that an evaluation report is
accurate as written  when  it  becomes  a  matter  of  record  and  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.  While the applicant  provided  memorandums
from his rater and indorser, he did not provide a statement  from  the
reviewing commander.

DPPPAB also indicated that AFPC/DPPPAE’s  (ERAB)  24 Jul  98  decision
discusses the merits of the applicant’s argument and they concur  with
their evaluation and  believe  that  some  “one-time  incidents  merit
special consideration.”   DPPPAB  points  out  that  coercion  implies
threats were made against an individual to purposely force  a  desired
response; however, the statements from the evaluators do not  indicate
that any such type of threat was made.

While  the  applicant  provided  two  memorandums  of   support   from
individuals outside the rating chain of the  contested  report,  those
individuals are entitled to their opinions  of  the  applicant’s  duty
performance and the events occurring  around  the  time  the  EPR  was
rendered.  However, DPPPAB does not believe  they  were  in  a  better
position to evaluate applicant’s duty performance than those who  were
specifically assigned that responsibility and therefore their opinions
are not germane to this appeal.

DPPPAB further stated that while  the  applicant  included  copies  of
several of his pervious EPRs, it is not feasible to compare one report
covering a certain period of  time  with  another  report  covering  a
different period of time.  This does not  allow  for  changes  in  the
ratee’s performance and does not follow the intent  of  the  governing
regulation, AFI 26-2403.  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.  DPPPAB must  conclude  the
contested report had its desired effect on the individual, as his duty
performance for the subsequent reporting period improved.  A review of
the documents provided in support of the applicant’s appeal  does  not
reveal a violation of regulatory provisions or indicate  an  injustice
has occurred.  Therefore, DPPPAB recommends denial.

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

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

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

_________________________________________________________________


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.  Our decision hinged  on
the statements provided by the rater and  indorser  of  the  contested
report.  The rater states that she does not  feel  that  the  one-time
incident  should  override  the  outstanding  duty   performance   the
applicant displayed throughout the year.  She  also  states  that  she
only marked the ratings down because she was directed to do so and she
totally disagreed with the decision.  The  indorser  states  that  the
incident involving the applicant should not have been reflected on the
EPR and that he believed it to  be  an  isolated  incident.   He  also
states that he was informed of the negative comment being  entered  in
Section VI and reluctantly agreed with the changes but felt them to be
unjust based on applicant’s previous performance  reports  and  having
worked with him.  Therefore, in view of these statements, and in order
to resolve any doubt with respect to  the  propriety  of  the  EPR  in
question, we recommend it  be  declared  void  and  removed  from  his
records.  Furthermore, we recommend that applicant’s corrected  record
be provided supplemental  promotion  consideration  to  the  grade  of
technical sergeant commencing with cycle 98E6.

_________________________________________________________________

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  15 Apr  96
through 14 Apr 97 be declared void and removed from his records.

It  is  further  recommended  that   he   be   provided   supplemental
consideration for promotion to the grade of technical sergeant for all
appropriate cycles commencing with cycle 98E6.

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 qualification 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 effective and  with  a  date  of  rank  as  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 26 August 1999, under the provisions of  AFI  36-
2603:

                  Mr. Wayne R. Gracie, Panel Chair
                  Mr. Lawrence R. Leehy, Member
              Ms. Leta L. O’Connor, Member
              Mrs. Joyce Earley, Examiner (without vote)

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

     Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 4 Sep 98, w/atchs.
     Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
     Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPWB, dated 17 Nov 98.
     Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPAB, dated 23 Nov 98.
     Exhibit E.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 14 Dec 98.




                                   WAYNE R. GRACIE
                                   Panel Chair



INDEX CODE:  111.02

AFBCMR 98-02530




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 15 April 1996
through 14 April 1997 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 commencing with cycle 98E6.

      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 qualification 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 effective and with a date of rank as 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