RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  98-02878
            INDEX CODE:  111.02

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

1.  The Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) rendered  for  the  period  15 May
1994 through 14 May 1995 be declared void and removed from her record.

2.  Two reaccomplished EPRs covering  the  period  15  May  1994  through  1
October 1994 and 2 October 1994  through  14  May  1995  be  placed  in  her
records.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

Due to a clerical error, change of rater (CRO) action did  not  generate  an
EPR.  When a change of rater action was completed there were at  least  130-
140 days of supervision that required an EPR; the  change  of  rater  action
only accounted for 110 days and an EPR was not accomplished.

In support of the appeal, applicant submits a personal statement,  contested
report, reaccomplished reports, letter from  the  indorser  (MSgt  Sorenson)
dated 14 Dec 95, letter from Commander, Major Kevin Novak dated 15  November
1996, letter from rater of the reaccomplished report  (M.  Allen)  dated  19
February 1998 and other documentation.

The indorser of the contested report states that it was directed  that  CROs
for all Air Force personnel with Navy raters  to  be  put  under  Air  Force
supervisors.   He  doesn’t  recall  the  exact  date  when  applicant’s  CRO
paperwork was done or how many days of supervision she had.  When  applicant
returned from TDY and leave in January 1995, she was  informed  of  the  CRO
(TSgt B).  Several months later, TSgt B  had  to  write  an  annual  EPR  on
applicant and MSgt S was the endorsing official.   The  overall  rating  for
this EPR was a “5.”  He believes the close-out date was  in  late  April  or
May.   Due  to  the  large  number  of  CROs  that  were  done  during  this
realignment, it’s possible that some of the effective dates  may  have  been
adjusted to avoid the “121-day EPR.”  The  applicant  missed  the  promotion
cut-off score by one point.  It’s possible that if she was  due  an  EPR  in
September 1994, and it was an overall “5”, a lower APR  or  EPR  could  have
dropped off.  This could have given her the extra point needed.

The commander stated in late 1994 that she should have received a change  of
rater EPR for 139 days of supervision.  Instead, the  action  was  backdated
and the period of supervision included an annual EPR.  As it turns  out  the
missing EPR could have been a determining factor  in  causing  her  to  miss
promotion to E-6 during the 1995 promotion cycle.  She has  been  attempting
to get this situation corrected  for  nearly  two  years.   Her  performance
during this time has been exemplary - indicative of what it was  during  the
timeframe of the missing EPR.

The rater of the reaccomplished report states that between 15  May  1994  to
22 September 1994, he was applicant’s  immediate  supervisor.   An  EPR  was
started in accordance with Air Force Regulations; however, he  was  told  by
other Air Force personnel in the section that they would,  in  fact,  submit
her EPR.  He was unable to remember the name of the Air Force  personnel  at
this time who assured him that an  EPR  would  be  done.   Consequently,  he
later learned that an EPR was  not  submitted  on  the  applicant  and  that
someone backdated the change of rater upon her return on 24 January 1995.

The  indorser  of  the  reaccomplished  report  states  that   he   received
information concerning apparent problems with  applicant’s  EPR  during  the
timeframe  1994/1995.   It  was  indicated  to  him  during  this  timeframe
applicant does not have EPR continuity, and is basically  missing  a  period
of time where EPR continuity is not officially in her records.   On  15  May
1994,  the  rater  of  the  reaccomplished  reports  continued  to  act   as
applicant’s supervisor.  He  remained  as  her  supervisor  until  at  least
22 September 1994, when she departed TDY for Italy.  The specific  date  she
was  changed  from  Chief  A  to  TSgt  B  is  not  confirmed,  but  it  was
approximately 24 September 1994, which was shortly after MSgt S’ arrival  in
the section.  The actual change was on or  about  1  October  1994.   On  or
about 1 October 1994, Navy  reporting  officials  would  transition  to  Air
Force reporting officials.  Assistance was offered to  complete  an  EPR  on
the applicant, however, personnel at that time  advised  they  would  ensure
the EPR was completed.  It was not until  applicant  returned  from  TDY  in
January 1995, that she discovered the EPR report had not been  accomplished.
 Her attempts to rectify this problem through  the  chain  of  command  have
resulted in negative progress.   He  strongly  recommends  that  applicant’s
missing EPR be accepted for inclusion into her records.

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 appealed the contested report under the provisions of AFI  36-
2401, and the appeal was considered  and  denied  twice  by  the  Evaluation
Report Appeals Board (ERAB).

EPR profile since 1992 reflects the following:

          PERIOD ENDING      OVERALL EVALUATION

           29 Jan 92                     5
           29 Jan 93                     5
           14 May 94                     5
       *   14 May 95                     5
           14 May 96                     5
           15 Nov 96                     5
           15 Nov 97                     5
            5 Oct 98                     5

     *  Contested report

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The Chief, Inquiries/AFBCMR Section, Enlisted Promotion &  Military  Testing
Branch, HQ AFPC/DPPPWB, reviewed this application  and  states  that  should
the Board replace the report with the closing date of  1  October  1994  the
applicant  will  be  entitled  to   supplemental   promotion   consideration
beginning with cycle 95E6.  The applicant will become a select during  cycle
95E6, if the Board grants the request pending a favorable data  verification
and the recommendation of the commander.  The applicant was selected  during
the CY97E cycle with a date of rank and effective date of 1 September  1997.
 They defer to the recommendation of AFPC/DPPPAB.

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

The  Chief,  BCMR  and  SSB  Section,  Directorate  of   Personnel   Program
Management, HQ AFPC/DPPPAB, reviewed this application and  states  that  the
rater’s rater claims his commander implemented  a  policy  in  September  or
October of 1994 requiring Air  Force  members  to  be  rated  by  Air  Force
supervisors.  However, he does not recall the exact date the  policy  became
effective, or more specifically, when a CRO for the  applicant  should  have
occurred.  He recalls that some of the dates of supervision for  a  few  Air
Force personnel may have been adjusted to avoid preparation of  a  CRO  EPR.
However, the fact remains that he signed the original EPR on  15  May  1995.
If he knew the applicant  should  have  received  an  EPR  in  September  or
October as a result of the CRO, why did  he  sign  an  EPR  he  knew  to  be
erroneous?

The reviewing commander confirms he implemented a  new  policy  whereby  Air
Force personnel would no longer be supervised by members of other  services.
 He also explained the reporting official  changes  would  be  effective  as
EPRs closed out and that reporting official changes would not  be  generated
out of the normal cycle.   He  states  guidance  was  not  followed  in  the
applicant’s case and someone changed her reporting  official  from  Navy  to
Air Force, but no EPR was accomplished.  The commander does not provide  the
exact date her supervisor was changed from Navy to  Air  Force,  or  why  he
signed an erroneous EPR in May 1995.

The applicant believes her former rater should have prepared an EPR  with  a
closeout date of 1 October 1994.  The applicant included a  memorandum  from
her former rater.  He states he started writing an EPR with a closeout  date
of 22 September 1994 (not 1 October  1994)  in  accordance  with  Air  Force
policy, but was told not to continue writing it.  The applicant now  asserts
someone may have altered her CRO date to preclude writing an EPR.  In  order
to prove this occurred and the individual was actually her rater  through  1
October 1994, the applicant must provide  official  documentation,  such  as
the CRO worksheet or an EPR management roster from her unit orderly room  or
military personnel  flight  (MPF).   They  note  the  applicant  provided  a
statement from someone outside the rating chain  who  stated  CRO  paperwork
was destroyed after the CRO was updated in the Personnel Data System  (PDS).
 Paperwork  of  that  nature  is  maintained  in  an  individual’s  personal
information file (PIF) in the unit orderly room.

Applicant claims her rater failed to provide her with  performance  feedback
and did not evaluate her performance fairly.  Only  members  in  the  rating
chain can confirm  if  counseling  was  provided.   Lack  of  counseling  or
feedback, by  itself,  is  not  sufficient  to  challenge  the  accuracy  or
justness of a report.  Evaluators must confirm that  they  did  not  provide
counseling or feedback,  and  that  this  directly  resulted  in  an  unfair
evaluation.  The applicant did not provide any information  from  her  rater
to substantiate her claim feedback did not occur.  They would also  like  to
point out, that it is  the  ratee’s  responsibility  to  be  aware  of  when
feedback sessions are due and to  request  a  feedback  session  from  their
rater if necessary.  More importantly, if the applicant’s  rater  failed  to
conduct a feedback session, it was her responsibility to notify the  rater’s
rater.

The applicant believes her rater  unfairly  assessed  her  duty  performance
during the contested reporting period and failed  to  utilize  many  of  her
accomplishments on her EPR.   Air  Force  policy  charges  a  rater  to  get
meaningful information from the ratee and as many sources  as  possible  and
to decide which accomplishments  will  be  included  on  an  EPR.   In  this
instance, the rater did not provide a statement on the  applicant’s  behalf.
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.  Her report is not inaccurate or unfair simply  because
she believes it is.

The applicant contends she did not contest the EPR while assigned at  Misawa
because  her  chain  of  command  threatened  her  with  a   “4”   promotion
recommendation on her EPR.  If the applicant believes she was the victim  of
unfair treatment, she must obtain statements from officials  in  the  rating
chain who have  firsthand  knowledge  of  the  threats,  or  other  credible
sources, such as the  findings  from  an  equal  opportunity  and  treatment
investigation.

It appears  this  appeal  was  initiated  in  response  to  the  applicant’s
nonselection for promotion  to  the  grade  of  Technical  Sergeant.   Every
noncommissioned officer (NCO) is  aware  of  the  criteria  used  under  the
Weighted Airman Promotion System (WAPS) to determine their promotion  score.
 The only variables in that equation are the  Skills  Knowledge  Test  (SKT)
and  Promotion  Fitness  Examination  (PFE)  scores.   EPRs  should  not  be
generated after promotion results are announced to  enhance  an  applicant’s
chance for supplemental promotion selection.  If the Board considers  adding
this EPR to her records, we believe it would be unfair  to  all  other  NCOs
eligible for promotion consideration who had a CRO prior  to  the  promotion
eligibility cut-off date (PECD), whose supervisors did not render EPRs,  and
whose scores were just below the cut-off score.  Therefore,  they  recommend
denial of applicant’s request.

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

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant reviewed the advisory opinions and states  that  her  response
to the items in HQ AFPC/DPPPAB advisory is as follows:

      Item c:  The letter from the commander dated 15 November 1996,  should
suffice since he acted on the decision of the 301st Inspector  General  (IG)
and directed the EPR be written.

      Item d:  “The local MPF at Misawa gave direction that if she  was  not
including the EPR that was missed due to the backdating  of  the  change  of
rater.” (sic)  That letter also did not include  that  that  rater  verbally
told her when she asked that he had in fact done this to avoid  writing  the
EPR.




      Item e:  The reviewing  commander  would  have  had  no  idea  of  the
situation.  All he can go by is what he is given.   At  the  time  he  would
have not been able to keep up on paperwork errors since he  was  responsible
for over 300 personnel.  Therefore, he would not have  known  that  the  EPR
was incorrectly done.

      Item f.  The official documentation was destroyed after  they  updated
the personnel files.  She was unable to get anything else as he was TDY  and
the ALFA rosters are updated monthly.  She returned three months  later  and
the current ALFA roster  did  not  contain  the  correct  information.   She
checked her personal information file (PIF) in the Unit and in  the  orderly
room.  All other CROs were there but that one.

      Item g:  She was TDY and upon her  return  she  continually  requested
feedback.  This was not accomplished because her rater said that  he  needed
60 days of  supervision  before  he  was  required  to  perform  a  feedback
session.  By that time the annual EPR was written.

      Item j:  The first appeal was done  at  Misawa.   The  application  is
dated in November and she did not have a permanent change of  station  (PCS)
until December of 1996.  The other two appeals were done at Goodfellow  AFB.
 This meeting was done in a closed meeting so, therefore, she  knows  it  is
her word against theirs.

      Item k:  As she stated she had initiated this attempt to  correct  her
records when she returned  from  TDY  in  January  1994.   The  results  for
technical sergeant did not come out until June 1994.  She believes that  the
board had  not  fully  read  her  statement  before  making  the  statements
contained in this paragraph.

Applicant's complete response is attached at Exhibit F.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

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

2.    The application was not timely filed; however, it is in  the  interest
of justice to excuse the failure to timely file.

3.    Sufficient relevant evidence has been  presented  to  demonstrate  the
existence of probable error or injustice.  After  reviewing  the  supporting
documentation submitted by the applicant, we believe  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
rating chain indicating that the applicant should have received a change  of
reporting  official  (CRO),  EPR  for  139  days  of  supervision  in  1994.
Instead, the action was backdated and the period of supervision included  an
annual EPR.  In view of these statements and in the absence of  evidence  to
question their integrity, we recommend  her  records  be  corrected  to  the
extent 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:

   a.  The Enlisted Performance  Report,  AF  Form  910,  rendered  for  the
period 15 May 1994 through 14 May 1995, be, and  hereby  is,  declared  void
and removed from her records.

   b.  The attached Enlisted Performance Reports,  AF  Forms  910,  rendered
for the period 15 May  1994  through  1  October  1994  and  2 October  1994
through 14 May 1995 be placed in her records in their proper sequence.

It is further directed that she be provided supplemental  consideration  for
promotion to the grade of technical sergeant for cycle 95E6.

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 she was promoted to the higher grade on  the
date of rank established by the  supplemental  promotion  and  that  she  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 9 March 1999, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

            Mr. Terry A. Yonkers, Panel Chair
            Ms. Rita J. Maldonado, Member
            Mr. Clarence D. Long III, Member




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

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 7 Oct 98, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPPWB, dated 30 Oct 98.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPPAB, dated 10 Nov 98, w/atchs.
   Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 23 November 1998.
   Exhibit F.  Letter, Applicant, dated 10 December 1998.





                 TERRY A. YONKERS
                 Panel Chair


AFBCMR 98-02878





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 APPLICANT be corrected to show that:

           a.  The Enlisted Performance Report, AF Form 910, rendered
for the period 15 May 1994 through 14 May 1995, be, and hereby is,
declared void and removed from her records.

           b.  The attached Enlisted Performance Reports, AF Forms
910, rendered for the period 15 May 1994 through 1 October 1994 and
2 October 1994 through 14 May 1995 be placed in her records in their
proper sequence.

      It is further directed that she be provided supplemental
consideration for promotion to the grade of technical sergeant for
cycle 95E6.

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





            JOE G. LINEBERGER
            Director
                 Air Force Review Boards Agency