RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  98-03134
            INDEX CODE:  111.02

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

The Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) rendered for  the  period  21 November
1995 through 30 July 1997, be removed and declared void.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The contested report is an inaccurate assessment of her  performance  during
the contested period.

She states that her rater based his evaluation of her  duty  performance  on
an isolated part of the rating period; and the contested report is based  on
the last 120 days of the 20 month reporting period.

The rater had limited knowledge of her accomplishments during  the  majority
of the reporting period.  He did not consider that she was under stress  due
to a sexual harassment and reprisal investigation by the  Inspector  General
(IG) and going through a divorce.  She attempted to go  to  her  supervisors
to discuss these issues and found  them  unapproachable.   She  also  states
that she never received a performance feedback  session  and  did  not  know
what was expected of her.  During this rating period she consistently  stood
out from her peers by mastering duties and filling leadership roles.

In support of the appeal, applicant submits a statement from the  rater  and
indorser  who  indicates  that  based  on  the  facts,  circumstances,   and
information documented in applicant’s appeal, they concur with  her  request
to void the report.  Applicant has  also  provided  a  copy  of  her  appeal
submitted under  AFI  36-2401,  the  contested  report,  Summary  Report  of
Investigation, and character references.

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
airman first class.

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).

EPR profile since 1997 reflects the following:

          PERIOD ENDING      OVERALL EVALUATION

          * 30 Jul 97                    3
            30 Jul 98                    5

     *  Contested report.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The  Chief,  BCMR  and  SSB  Section,  Directorate  of   Personnel   Program
Management, HQ AFPC/DPPPAB, reviewed this application and  states  that  the
applicant contends her squadron  section  commander  sexually  harassed  her
during the reporting period.  As a result  of  her  allegations,  a  command
directed investigation was initiated which she contends, clearly added  much
stress to her life.  She now contends  her  rater  failed  to  consider  the
stress she was under as a result of the  investigation  and  downgraded  her
EPR.  Although the applicant provided a copy of  an  IG  Summary  Report  of
Investigation (SROI), they note neither her name or  the  contested  EPR  is
specifically mentioned in the report.  They would also  like  to  point  out
that while a pattern of sexual harassment by the squadron section  commander
was substantiated by  the  investigation,  none  of  the  sexual  harassment
allegations  regarding  the  airman  in  question  were  substantiated.   It
appears the report was accomplished in  direct  accordance  with  applicable
regulations.

The  applicant  contends  her  rater  based  his  evaluation  of  her   duty
performance solely on the 120 days of the reporting period he served as  her
rater.  They do not agree.  While it is true he only supervised her for  120
days, they note many of the accomplishments named on the EPR  are  reflected
on the letter of  evaluation  (LOE)  documenting  her  performance  for  the
period between 22 July 1996 and 1 April 1997.  She did not provide  evidence
to substantiate the EPR is unfair or inaccurately portrays  her  performance
based on his observation.  Although she provided  several  memorandums  from
individuals outside the rating chain of  the  contested  EPR,  they  do  not
consider their opinions to be  germane  to  this  appeal.   While  they  are
entitled to their opinion of the applicant and her  duty  performance,  they
do not believe  they  were  in  a  better  position  to  evaluate  her  duty
performance than those assigned that responsibility.

The applicant contends she did  not  receive  formal  face-to-face  feedback
sessions  during  the  reporting  period,  but  provided   copies   of   two
performance feedback worksheets dated 11 April 1997 and 27 June 1997.   Only
members in the rating chain can confirm if counseling was  provided.   While
current Air Force policy requires performance feedback for personnel,  there
may be occasions when feedback was not provided during a  reporting  period.
Lack of counseling or feedback, by itself, is not  sufficient  to  challenge
the accuracy or justness of a report.  Evaluators must confirm they did  not
provide counseling or feedback,  and  that  this  directly  resulted  in  an
unfair evaluation.  More importantly, AFI  36-2403,  paragraph  2.8,  states
the ratee should “notify the rater and,  if  necessary,  the  rater’s  rater
when a required or requested feedback session does  not  take  place.”   The
applicant does not state whether she requested a feedback session  from  her
rater, nor does she state she notified the rater or the rater’s  rater  when
the required feedback session did not take place.  Regardless, AFI  36-2403,
paragraph 2-10,  states,  “A  rater’s  failure  to  conduct  a  required  or
requested feedback session does not by itself invalidate an EPR.”

The applicant contends she did not receive adequate training to perform  her
assigned duties and was  placed  in  a  position  with  a  skill  level  not
commensurate with her grade.  The applicant provided a copy of her  training
records.   However,  since  failing  to  provide  training  and  failing  to
document training  is  different  problems,  OJT  records,  reviews  of  OJT
records,  and  OJT  inspection  reports  do  not  prove  training  was   not
conducted, only that  training  was  not  documented.   The  applicant  also
provided a copy of a unit personnel management roster (UPMR) indicating  she
was assigned to a “7” level position.  However, her name  is  not  annotated
on  the  UPMR  in  that  specific  position.   Furthermore,  when  assigning
personnel to positions on the UPMR, it  is  necessary  to  match  them  with
their corresponding Air Force Specialty Code (AFSC).   While  it  is  always
ideal to match personnel with their acquired skill or  qualification  level,
it is sometime necessary to assign someone against an AFSC with a higher  or
lower qualification level, especially, if there  is  not  authorization  for
the qualification level commensurate with their grade.  If  the  airman  was
assigned against the “7” level position  as  she  alleges,  were  there  “3”
level positions within her unit, and more importantly, was  she,  an  Airman
First Class,  expected  to  perform  at  a  “7”  qualification  level?   The
applicant must provide supporting statements  from  rating  chain  officials
who can give specific information about the training problem, what  position
she was assigned to, their expectations of her duty  performance  and  their
impact on the EPR.

The applicant does not believe the comments on the EPR correspond  with  the
ratings she received.  While the comments  and  ratings  on  an  EPR  should
support  one  another,  there  is  no  direct  correlation  between  certain
comments and certain ratings.  For example, if the applicant  did  something
in an outstanding manner, it does not necessarily mean she  deserves  a  “5”
promotion recommendation.   Again,  the  applicant  failed  to  provide  any
support/clarification from her rating  chain  to  substantiate  her  claims.
They, do not believe  the  EPR  is  erroneous.   Therefore,  they  recommend
denial of applicant’s request.

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

The Chief, Inquiries/AFBCMR Section, Enlisted Promotion &  Military  Testing
Branch, HQ AFPC/DPPPWB, also  reviewed  this  application  and  states  that
should the Board void the report in its entirety,  or  upgrade  the  overall
rating, providing she is otherwise eligible, the applicant will be  entitled
to supplemental promotion consideration beginning with cycle 99E5  providing
she is not selected during  the  initial  selection  process.   However,  if
favorable  results  are  received  by   1   July   1999,   no   supplemental
consideration would be required as there would be sufficient time to  update
the promotion file.  Promotions for this cycle will be  accomplished  during
August 1999.  They defer to the recommendation of AFPC/DPPPAB.

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  21
December 1998 for review and response within 30 days.  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.  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.  We note the inquiry from Chief Master Sergeant  (CMSgt)  B---,
which  indicates  that  the  indorsing  official  on  the  contested  report
requested that CMSgt  B---  do  a  investigation  of  the  accuracy  of  the
contested report.  The inquiry reveals that the applicant arrived at  Nellis
AFB 22 July 1996, she was never told the name of  her  immediate  supervisor
or trainer; she never received a formal 60 or 180 day  feedback;  interviews
with  personnel  directly  associated  with  applicant’s  duty   performance
revealed she is  an  above  average,  intelligent,  outstanding  and  highly
skilled exploitation  analyst;  and  failure  on  the  part  of  applicant’s
supervisors to perform their supervisory responsibilities, in  each  of  her
assigned duty sections, in  ever  location,  contributed  to  her  receiving
conservative ratings on her initial report.   A  report  that  predominantly
appraises  120  days  performing  an  additional  duty,  not   the   overall
performance of a 20 month period.  In view of the  investigation  and  since
the rater and indorser recommends  voidance  of  the  contested  report,  we
believe that sufficient doubt exist as to the accuracy of  the  report.   In
view of the  above,  we  recommend  the  contested  report  be  removed  and
declared void.

_________________________________________________________________

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 21 November 1995  through  30  July  1997,
be, and hereby is, declared void and removed from her records.

_________________________________________________________________

The following members of the Board considered this application in  Executive
Session on 8 April 1999, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:


              Mrs. Barbara A. Westgate, Panel Chair
              Mr. John E. Pettit, Member
              Mr. Joseph A. Roj, Member

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

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 21 October 1998, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPWB, dated 20 November 1998.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPAB, dated 3 December 1998.
   Exhibit E.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 21 December 1998.




                                   BARBARA A. WESTGATE
                                   Panel Chair


AFBCMR 98-03134





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  21 November
1995 through 30 July 1997,  be,  and  hereby  is,  declared  void  and
removed from her records.




                 JOE G. LINEBERGER
                 Deputy for
                 Air Force Review Boards Agency