RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  98-02576
                             INDEX CODE: 111.02

                             COUNSEL:  None

                             HEARING DESIRED:  No



_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

The Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) rendered for the  period  20 May  1995
through 19 May 1996 be declared void and removed from his records.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

In recognition of duty performed in a superior manner,  his  commander  sent
the contested EPR  to  the  indorser  (81st  Training  Wing  Commander)  for
indorsement.  The indorser was to review and send it forward.  For  personal
reasons and malice he (the indorser)  decided  not  to  forward  it  but  to
indorse it himself and downgrade his rating.   His  EPR  downgrade  was  not
based on his not improving the process, just that wings deployment  function
had  remained  below  average  with  little   improvement.    The   indorser
downgraded the EPR because  there  was  no  improvement  yet  he  (indorser)
awarded him the Meritorious Service Medal  (MSM)  citing  improvements  were
made during this period.  As for being an average performer, he has over  40
National, Air Force, Navy, and  Foreign  Service  decorations  for  superior
performance and support.  He has  served  in  Operations;  Eldorado  Canyon,
raid on Libya; Just Cause, Panama, Desert Shield and Desert  Storm;  Provide
Comfort, helping Kurds in Iraq;  Deny  Flight,  Bosnia;  Restore  Democracy,
Haiti; and Sea Signal, Cuba.  He  doesn’t  think  average  performers  would
receive these decorations.  He most recently was  awarded  the  MSM  stating
outstanding performance and improvements to  the  deployment  process.   The
medal awarded includes the period of this report.  He asks that his  request
be  reviewed  and  his  military  records  corrected  to  reflect  his  true
performance.  The  contested  report  has  haunted  him  for  too  long  and
prevented so much.

In support of the appeal, applicant  submits  a  statement  from  the  rater
stating that the applicant’s  duty  performance  was  consistently  superior
throughout the period that the  applicant  worked  for  him  in  the  Combat
Readiness Flight.  The applicant is a man of vision  and  boundless  energy.
Both he and the applicant made numerous suggestions  to  the  Wing  Mobility
Machine process owners, which were received as innovative  and  accepted  as
immense improvements.  The applicant  implemented  significant  improvements
in the Mobility Bag Process, Weapons  transport  procedures,  and  the  wing
mobility training program.  Each of these  improvements  were  reflected  in
the MSM given to the applicant’s commander.  Yet,  their  ideas  and  energy
were met with  continual  disregard  and  disrespect  for  their  knowledge,
education and skill in the Mobility arena and  seemed  only  concerned  with
shifting  the  Wing  Mobility  Mission  manpower  responsibility  from   the
Training Group to the Logistics Group.  During  this  period  of  transition
they successfully trained and certified over 200 new  augmentees  for  their
new responsibility in the Mobility process.   Each  day  the  applicant  was
intimately involved in the scheduling, training, testing, and exercising  of
these newly  trained  individuals.   His  degree  of  concern  for  the  new
trainees and his continual follow-up  on  minute  details  of  the  training
process was always exemplary.

Applicant also submits a statement  from  the  rater’s  rater  stating  that
given another chance to rate applicant on his duty performance,  there  will
be no hesitation on his part for  him  (applicant)  to  get  a  “5”  rating.
Having been a squadron commander twice,  he  has  learned  to  spot  winners
needed to get their unit moving forward.  The  applicant  is  one  of  these
winners he can count on.  He stands firm on his “5” EPR  rating  based  upon
his  professional  judgment  of  having  seen   the   applicant’s   superior
performance in action.  He is a true Air Force warrior worthy of a  “5”  EPR
rating.  Upgrading his EPR to “5” based on new facts presented is the  right
thing to do.

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
master sergeant (MSgt).

The applicant appealed the contested report twice under  the  provisions  of
AFI 36-2401, Correcting Officer and Enlisted  Evaluation  Reports,  and  the
appeals were considered and denied by the  Evaluation  Report  Appeal  Board
(ERAB).

The applicant  received  the  Meritorious  Service  Medal,  First  Oak  Leaf
Cluster, for the period 18 March 1993 to 31 July 1998.

EPR profile since 1992 reflects the following:

      PERIOD ENDING    EVALUATION OF POTENTIAL

            05 Jan 92        5
            05 Jan 93        5
            19 May 93        5
            19 May 94        5
            19 May 95        5
       *    19 May 96        4 (Downgraded from
                                     a 5)
            19 May 97        5
            17 May 98        5

*  Contested report.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The Chief, BCMR and SSB Section, AFPC/DPPPAB, reviewed this application  and
states Air Force policy is 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   provided
memorandums of support from his  rater  and  rater’s  rater,  who  from  the
beginning, believed the applicant deserved a  “5”  promotion  recommendation
and a senior rater indorsement.  However, the applicant did not provide  any
information/support from the indorser of the contested  EPR  who  downgraded
the report in the first place.  An indorser is required by Air Force  policy
to consider the significance of an incident and how  often  it  occurs  when
assessing an individual’s duty performance and  promotion  potential.   Only
the indorser of the report  knows  how  much  the  incident  influenced  the
report; therefore, the opinions of the individuals outside the rating  chain
are not germane in  this  instance.   The  applicant  fails  to  realize  or
understand that, by virtue of human nature, an individual’s  self-assessment
of performance is often somewhat  “glorified”  compared  to  an  evaluator’s
perspective because it is based on perceptions of self.  His report  is  not
inaccurate or unfair simply because he believes it is.  While the  applicant
was selected as Senior Noncommissioned Officer (SNCO)  of  the  Quarter  for
the third quarter of 1995 - it  was  the  first  quarter  of  the  reporting
period.  The fact a unit is submitted  for  an  annual  unit  award  doesn’t
automatically mean that all individuals assigned to  the  unit  will  get  a
firewall “5” evaluation report.  The MSM documents his rater’s  performance,
not his.  It is not unusual for  performance  to  rise  and  fall  during  a
reporting period.  When an evaluator discovers a serious  problem,  he  must
record the
problem in the evaluation  report  even  when  it  disagrees  with  previous
feedback, in  this  instance,  his  SNCO  of  the  Quarter  award.   If  the
applicant believes his indorser may have  been  biased  against  him,  or  a
personality  conflict  existed,  he  must  cite  specific  examples  of  the
conflict or bias and provide firsthand evidence clearly indicating  how  the
conflict prevented the evaluator from preparing a fair and accurate  report.
 The applicant claims his commander downgraded his report  because  he  made
an innocent statement that was misconstrued by his  commander.   In  worker-
supervisor relationships, some disagreements are likely  to  occur  since  a
worker must abide by a supervisor’s policies and decisions.   Personnel  who
do not perform at expected  standards  may  believe  that  an  evaluator  is
personally  biased;  however,  the  conflict  generated  by  this   personal
attention is usually professional rather than personal.   If  the  applicant
is unable to provide a statement from his indorser, he must obtain  official
substantiation of error or injustice from  the  Inspector  General  (IG)  or
Social  Actions.   It  appears  the  reports  were  accomplished  in  direct
accordance with applicable regulations.  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
36-2403.  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.  One could also conclude, the “4” he received  on  the
contested EPR may have motivated him to improve  his  duty  performance  for
the subsequent reporting  period.   While  it  is  true  that  EPRs  are  an
important factor used in determining promotion potential under the  Weighted
Airmen’s Promotion System (WAPS), the contested report  is  not  unjust,  in
this instance, simply because the applicant received a “4.”   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,
providing the  applicant  is  otherwise  eligible,  the  applicant  will  be
entitled to supplemental promotion consideration beginning with cycle 97E8.

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 AFPC has denied  his
request because his indorser does not wish to change his  statement/opinion.
 If the indorser intended malice towards
him, of course he would not change his rating.  For the period  in  question
the owner of the program has stated many improvements, some specifically  by
him.  Awards were presented citing  improvements  of  the  process.   On  18
September 1998, he received a MSM stating that (for the period in  question)
the Wing Commander referred to him as “Mr. Mobility” because he did  such  a
great job with the transportation portion of the  deployment  function.   So
with all these facts that he was not  an  average  performer  and  the  wing
deployment process was so outstanding,  how  can  the  indorser’s  statement
hold true?  An average performer is always an  average  performer.   He  has
established a reputation for being  outstanding  or  a  superior  performer.
Again, he appeals to the Board to correct his military  records  to  reflect
his true performance.

Applicant's complete response 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  evidence  of
record and the statements provided  by  the  rater  and  rater’s  rater,  we
believe  the  contested  report  is  not  an  accurate  assessment  of   the
applicant's duty  performance  during  the  period  in  question.   In  this
respect, we note the apparent inconsistency  between  the  contested  report
and  the  applicant’s  prior  and  subsequent  duty  performance,  and   the
inconsistency  in  the  comments  of  the  evaluators  and  the  rating  the
applicant was given.  In view of the foregoing, and in an effort  to  offset
any possibility of an injustice, we believe  the  contested  EPR  should  be
declared void and removed from his records.  In addition,  we  recommend  he
be provided supplemental promotion consideration for all appropriate  cycles
beginning with cycle 97E8.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT:

The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air  Force  relating
to APPLICANT, be corrected to show  that  the  Senior  Enlisted  Performance
Report, AF Form 911, rendered for the period  20 May  1995  through  19  May
1996, be declared void and removed from his records.

It  is  further  recommended  that  applicant   be   provided   supplemental
consideration for promotion to the grade of senior master sergeant  for  all
appropriate cycles beginning with cycle 97E8.

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 applicant was promoted to the  higher  grade
on the date of rank established  by  the  supplemental  promotion  and  that
applicant 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 16 February 1999, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

      Ms. Charlene M. Bradley, Panel Chair
      Mr. Mike Novel, Member
      Mr. Philip Sheuerman, Member
      Ms. Gloria J. Williams, Examiner (without vote)

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

      Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 1 September 1998, w/atchs.
      Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
      Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPPPAB, dated 6 October 1998.
      Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/DPPPWB, dated 16 September 1998.
      Exhibit E. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 19 October 1998.
      Exhibit F. Applicant’s Response, dated 20 October 1998.





                             CHARLENE M. BRADLEY
                             Panel Chair


AFBCMR 98-02576





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 Senior Enlisted Performance
Report, AF Form 911, rendered for the period 20 May 1995 through 19 May
1996, be, and hereby is, declared void and removed from his records.

      It is further directed that applicant be provided supplemental
consideration for promotion to the grade of senior master sergeant for all
appropriate cycles beginning with cycle 97E8.

      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 applicant was promoted to the higher grade
on the date of rank established by the supplemental promotion and that
applicant is entitled to all pay, allowances, and benefits of such grade as
of that date.





                             JOE G. LINEBERGER
                             Director
                             Air Force Review Boards Agency