RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  98-02902
            INDEX CODE:    107.00,131.00

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO


_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

1.  The Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) rendered  for  the  period  7  May
1993 through 3 March 1994 be removed and declared void.

2.  He be awarded the Air Force Commendation Medal with 1 Oak  Leaf  Cluster
for the period 29 June 1989 through 6 May 1992.

3.  He be promoted to the grade of master sergeant.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

In regard to the three-year time  limitation;  he  was  told  by  his  first
sergeant that the time limit expired three years from his departure  of  his
current duty station.  This would allow individuals  to  rebut  without  the
fear of reprisal.  Based on the information she provided he had until  March
1999 to file an appeal.

In regards to letters not being signed, there are six  items  that  are  not
signed.  An Air Force Form 1206, an  outstanding  enlisted  aircrew  of  the
year award nomination, a  memorandum  for  the  commander  concerning  equal
opportunity and treatment, an informational memorandum from social  actions,
the  commendation  award  in  question,  AF  Form  642,  and   stripes   for
exceptional performer (step) nomination.

The AF Form 1206 is a nomination award letter that is  used  to  select  the
aircrew member of the quarter.  It was not required to be signed.

The memorandum for the commander concerning equal opportunity and  treatment
was the first letter he wrote to  the  commander  to  express  his  concerns
about those issues and the way he was being treated.  He included a copy  he
made before he signed the original.

The informational memorandum  from  social  actions  was  a  copy  that  was
provided to him by social actions of  the  findings.   He  had  not  thought
about or realized it was not signed until it was brought  to  his  attention
from the ERAB.  He can only assume some credibility to the  authenticity  of
the document was accepted since  the  ERAB  quoted  certain  paragraphs  and
based their decisions on the document.

The AF Form 642 is the original  commendation  award  package  in  question.
Since Major R pulled his award package, as described in his  letter  to  the
ERAB, it had never made its way to the commander for his signature.

The stripes  for  exceptional  performer  (STEP)  package  is  the  original
package that his previous supervisor had done on  him  a  couple  of  months
after Major R took over the office.  This is also part of his  complaint  to
social actions.

He states that he is confused as to how the ERAB can find merit in  part  of
a document and not find merit in the whole document.   It  is  clear  social
actions found enough  evidence  to  support  his  complaint  that  something
inappropriate happened and something should have been done about it.

No one knows what happened, but him and Major R.  No one else was  there  to
hear his condescending demeaning tone, the inflections in his voice,  or  to
see his body language.  Not once does the social actions report  show  where
he created this problem.  Not once  does  the  report  show  where  he  said
anything wrong or disparaging to Major R.

It is important  to  him  that  the  Board  remove  the  contested  EPR  and
reinstate his promotion.  He wants to fairly compete against his peers.   He
states that 1993  -  1994  was  one  of  his  best  years.   Why  would  his
supervisors choose to recognize  him  with  quarterly  awards,  commendation
awards, letters of  appreciation,  step  packages,  etc.,  if  he  were  not
deserving of those honors?  Why would  his  subordinates  write  letters  of
support if he were such a terrible  supervisor?   Why  was  he  selected  as
NCOIC of Standardization and Evaluation over individuals that had more  rank
than himself or selected to brief the  President  of  Paraguay  and  cabinet
members if he was substandard?  It doesn’t stand to reason that he could  be
doing so many good things and at the same time be a  substandard  performer.
His own supervisor and commander chose to cover up the disparaging  remarks.
 Major R and Lieutenant Colonel B made a mistake and that  is  something  he
has had to live with everyday.







He states that he has had to deal with racism  and  disparaging  remarks  on
many occasions in his younger years  before  he  joined  the  military.   He
never thought he would ever have to deal with this in the United States  Air
Force.

In support of his appeal, the applicant provided a personal  statement,  AFI
36-2401  Decision  with  attachments,  Commendation  medal   package,   STEP
promotion package, and other documentation.

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  by  the  Evaluation  Report
Appeals Board (ERAB).

Applicant's EPR profile follows:

          PERIOD ENDING      OVERALL EVALUATION

            6 May 93                     5
          * 3 Mar 94                     4
            3 Mar 95                     5
            3 Mar 96                     5
            3 Mar 97                     5
            3 Mar 98                     5
           10 Jul 98                     5

     *  Contested report.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The  Recognition  Programs  Branch,  Promotions,  Evaluation  &  Recognition
Division, HQ AFPC/DPPPRA, reviewed this  application  and  states  that  the
inclusive period for the requested AFCM  is  prior  to  the  period  of  the
contested EPR and prior to his  complaints  to  Social  Actions;  therefore,
this decoration does not seem to be  connected  at  all  with  his  EPR  and
subsequent actions.  Since there is no  evidence  a  recommendation  package
was ever submitted, they can not verify the applicant’s eligibility for  the
AFCM w/1 OLC for the  specified  time  period.   Therefore,  they  recommend
denial of applicant’s request.

A complete copy of the Air Force 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
applicant has failed to provide  any  information/support  from  the  rating
chain on the contested EPR.  Applicant filed a complaint with  the  SA.   He
contended his rater used  a  disparaging  racial  remark  in  his  presence.
While their findings indicate a possibility that a  violation  of  AFR  30-2
(Social Actions) occurred, the  rater’s  statement  could  be  construed  as
racial at most and insensitive at  the  least.   The  indorser  should  have
taken appropriate action  toward  the  applicant’s  rater  for  his  remark.
While there might have been a personality  conflict  between  the  applicant
and his rater, there was not  enough  evidence  presented  to  conclude  the
applicant’s rater downgraded the EPR because of his race.   They  understand
the applicant’s desire to have the 3 March 1994 EPR voided  because  of  the
promotion advantage.  However,  it  appears  his  EPR  was  accomplished  in
direct accordance with applicable regulations.

Applicant contends his  supervisor  rendered  the  contested  3  March  1994
report in reprisal against him and requests  the  Board  remove  the  report
from his record.  He does not submit clear evidence to prove reprisal was  a
factor.  In order to substantiate  reprisal  occurred,  the  applicant  must
file a complaint with the IG or SA, and include a copy of their summary  and
Report of Investigation (ROI) with his appeal.   The  applicant  included  a
memorandum from  an  official  from  SA;  however,  their  findings  do  not
substantiate the EPR was downgraded in reprisal against him.   As  a  matter
of fact, the SA investigator indicated that  the  applicant’s  indorser  was
interviewed.  The indorser told the SA investigator, “. .  .  although  (the
applicant) is an excellent NCO, he did have flaws. . .(the rater)  had  told
him [the indorser] during the last period of (the applicant’s)  observation,
his performance was less than outstanding justifying his ratings.”

The applicant is attempting  to  relate  the  ratings  on  the  EPR  to  the
markings  on  the  performance  feedback  worksheet  (PFW).   This   is   an
inappropriate comparison and is inconsistent with  the  Enlisted  Evaluation
System (EES).

Applicant  contends  the  contested  EPR  is  inconsistent   with   previous
performance.  As the applicant points out, 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,  AFR
39-62.  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,  they  recommend  denial  of  applicant’s
request.

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




The Chief, Inquiries/BCMR Section, Enlisted  Promotion  &  Military  Testing
Branch, HQ AFPC/DPPPWB,  reviewed  this  application  and  states  that  the
policies regarding the  approval  of  a  decoration  and  the  credit  of  a
decoration for promotion purposes are two separate  and  distinct  policies.
Current Air Force promotion policy (AFI 36-2502, Table 2.2, rule 5, Note  2)
dictates that before a decoration  is  credited  for  a  specific  promotion
cycle, the closeout date  of  the  decoration  must  be  on  or  before  the
promotion eligibility cutoff date (PECD),  and  the  date  of  the  DECOR-6,
Request  for  Decoration  Printout  (RDP),  must  be  before  the  date   of
selections  for  the  cycle  in  question.   Each  promotion  cycle  has  an
established PECD which is used to determine in  which  Air  Force  Specialty
Code (AFSC) or  Chief  Enlisted  Manager  (CEM)  code  the  member  will  be
considered, as well as which performance reports  and  decorations  will  be
used in the promotion consideration.  The PECD for the  promotion  cycle  in
question was 31 December 1994.  In addition,  a  decoration  that  a  member
claims was lost, downgraded, etc., must be  verified  and  fully  documented
that it was placed into official channels prior to the selection date.

The Air Force  Commendation  Medal  (AFCM)  decoration  does  not  meet  the
criteria for promotion credit during the 95E7  cycle  because  there  is  no
tangible evidence the decoration was placed into official channels prior  to
the date  selections  for  the  95E7  cycle  were  made.   This  policy  was
initiated  28  February  1979  specifically  to  preclude   personnel   from
subsequently  (after  promotion  selections)  submitting   someone   for   a
decoration with a retroactive decoration effective date  (close-out)  so  as
to put them over the  selection  cutoff  score.   Exceptions  to  the  above
policy  are  only  considered  when  the  airman  can  support  a   previous
submission with documentation or statements  including  conclusive  evidence
that the recommendation was officially placed in  military  channels  within
the prescribed time limit and conclusive  evidence  the  recommendation  was
not acted upon through loss or inadvertence.  IAW AFI 36-2803, paragraph  3-
1, a decoration is considered to have been placed in official channels  when
the decoration recommendation is  signed  by  the  initiating  official  and
indorsed by a higher official in the chain of command.

While they are acutely aware of the impact this recommendation  has  on  the
applicant’s career,  the  fact  remains  he  was  not  recommended  for  the
decoration covering the period 29 June 1989 through 6 May 1992.  To  approve
the applicant’s request would not be fair or equitable  to  many  others  in
the same situation who also miss promotion selection by a narrow margin.

The Stripes for Exceptional Performers  (STEP)  program  was  implemented  1
October 1980, and is a program authorizing commanders of major air  commands
and separate operating agencies to select and promote a  limited  number  of
outstanding performers  to  the  grade  of  staff  sergeant  through  master
sergeant.   In  this  regard,  STEP  promotions  complement   the   existing
promotion program for the middle grades  and  are  designed  to  accommodate
unique  and  unusual  circumstances  which,  in  the  commander’s  judgment,
clearly  warrant  promotion.   They  cannot  list  specific  criteria   that
constitute exceptional performance,  because,  by  design,  that  subjective
evaluation is made by each commander.  However, exceptional  performers  are
most often individuals who have unusual success  at  mission  accomplishment
regardless of the obstacles.

Should the Board void the contested report closing  3  March  1994,  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  95E7.   The  applicant  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 their Air Force evaluation, with attachment, is  attached
at Exhibit E.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant reviewed the Air Force evaluations and states that  the  award
for the Air  Force  Commendation  Medal  was  written  and  submitted.   His
supervisor pulled his award package after  he  went  through  the  chain  of
command to complain about his racial remark.  The commander  never  endorsed
his package because it never reached his desk due to the fact  that  it  was
pulled by his supervisor without any reason or justification.

His previous supervisor submitted a step promotion  package.   This  package
was never sent because the commander felt he did not deserve  the  right  to
progress, therefore, he did not sign it.   Because  of  that  it  was  never
submitted to be reviewed at the wing command level.  He went  up  the  chain
of command to social actions to complain about what had happened  and  about
his commander not doing anything about his allegations.

The advisory opinion states that he did not provide a statement from  anyone
stating a promotion package was ever  submitted.   He  did  not  know  these
events were going to take place, and he was  not  prepared  for  them.   The
only proof he has is his original package he sent  to  the  Board,  and  the
information in the social action report.  When the award  was  written,  the
dates selected were to match what was officially  considered  his  mid-tour.
Therefore, it would have counted with  his  promotion  results.   He  states
that he spent seven years in Japan and because of this  situation  he  never
received a mid-tour award.



HQ AFPC/DPPPAB states that he contends his evaluator  discriminated  against
him and downgraded his EPR from a “5” to a “4”.  His contention is that  his
EPR was downgraded to keep him from succeeding in his career  goals  and  as
retaliation for going to social actions.  He went to social actions  against
the commander for his inability to act on his  complaint.   He  states  that
this is not just about the behavior of his supervisor, but  also  Lieutenant
Colonel B’s biased treatment by protecting  his  supervisor  and  supporting
his story.

The advisory also states the purpose of feedback is to  give  direction  and
to define performance expectations.  Feedback also provides  the  ratee  the
opportunity to improve performance.  He states  how  can  a  person  improve
performance if the supervisor is telling the subordinate that there  are  no
problems.  He received one feedback and was told based on the feedback  that
everything was fine.  The feedback session occurred  one  month  before  his
supervisor made demeaning and disparaging remarks to  him.   No  subordinate
should have a supervisor set him up to  fail  by  writing  one  thing  on  a
feedback and something completely different on  an  evaluation.   He  states
that his ratings were not consistent with his accomplishments.

He states that he is not trying to make this a racial  issue.   He  did  not
create this problem, make the remarks or try to cover it up.  He feels  that
he has been discredited, his credibility  challenged,  and  his  progression
hindered.

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

In further support of his appeal, applicant has provided  a  statement  from
Senior Master Sergeant Glover.

_________________________________________________________________

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  warranting  voidance  of  the
contested EPR  and  providing  the  applicant  with  supplemental  promotion
consideration.  After reviewing the evidence of  record,  we  are  persuaded
that the contested report is  not  an  accurate  assessment  of  applicant’s
performance during the period in question.  In this respect,  we  note  that
Social Actions found that the possibility existed that the rater’s  comments
to the applicant could have been racial.  In addition, we  note  applicant’s
accomplishments during  the  rating  period  and  believe  that  the  rating
awarded  by  the  rater  was  based  on  factors  other   than   applicant’s
performance.  In view of this finding, we recommend that the OPR  closing  3
March 1994 be declared void and removed from his records.   Furthermore,  we
recommend that he be provided supplemental promotion  consideration  to  the
grade of master sergeant by the 95E7 cycle.

4.    Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to  demonstrate  the
existence of probable error or injustice in regard to  his  requests  to  be
awarded the AFCM and promotion to the grade of master sergeant  through  the
correction  of  records  process.   While  the  applicant  has  provided   a
statement from his  former  supervisor  who  states  that  a  recommendation
package was submitted, we are not persuaded that his former  supervisor  had
the authority to submit an award recommendation or that  the  applicant  was
eligible for an award at the time his supervisor went  PCS.   We  also  note
that the applicant has not submitted a copy of  the  recommendation  package
or a prepared citation to accompany the award.  Therefore,  in  the  absence
of more detailed statements concerning the award  in  question,  we  do  not
recommend that he be awarded the AFCM for the period in question.  Since  it
appears that he will be promoted to the grade of  master  sergeant  once  he
has been provided supplemental promotion consideration,  no  further  action
is required by the Board on this issue.

_________________________________________________________________

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 7 May 1993 through 3 March 1994,  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  master  sergeant  for  all  appropriate  cycles
beginning with cycle 95E7.

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 14 September 1999, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

            Mr. Thomas S. Markiewicz, Panel Chair
            Mr. Walter J. Hosey, Member
            Mr. Patrick R. Wheeler, 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/DPPPRA, dated 20 Oct 98.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPPAB, dated 23 Oct 98.
   Exhibit E.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPPWB, dated 30 Oct 98.
   Exhibit F.  Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 16 Nov 98.
   Exhibit G.  Applicant’s Response, dated 1 Dec 98, w/atchs.




                 THOMAS S. MARKIEWICZ
                 Panel Chair


AFBCMR 98-02902





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 the Enlisted Performance
Report, AF Form 910, rendered for the period 7 May 1993 through 3 March
1994, 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 master sergeant for all appropriate cycles
beginning with cycle 95E7.

      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