RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  99-00555
            INDEX CODE:  111.05

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

The Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) rendered  for  the  period  19 October
1995  through  18  October  1996  be  declared  void  and  replaced  with  a
reaccomplished report covering the same period.

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The contested report is an inaccurate assessment of his  performance  during
the contested period.  He states that the  rating  chain  members  were  not
aware of his duty  performance  or  accomplishments  during  the  period  in
question.

He submits a statement from the rater who indicates that in September  1996,
he wrote the contested EPR and rated the applicant in  what  he  thought  at
that time was fair.  Upon reconsideration, on 4 November 1996, he  attempted
to withdraw the report and replace it with what he had decided  was  a  fair
assessment.  Unfortunately, the  contested  report  had,  as  of  31 October
1996, became a matter of record and could not be replaced.  He did not  have
adequate  time  to  review  applicant’s  performance  immediately  prior  to
writing the EPR due to being on TDY.  Applicant  received  numerous  letters
of  appreciation  that  he  was  unaware  and  if  he  would  have  had  the
opportunity to  review  his  performance  during  the  last  months  of  the
reporting period, he would have rated him higher than he originally did.

He also submits a statement from the indorser that  states  he  endorsed  an
EPR on applicant that he now feels may have been unjust  in  the  assessment
of his job performance.  After consulting with the rater  and  the  squadron
commander, and Lieutenant Colonel X, he fully endorses  the  rewritten  EPR.
He feels, as first line supervisors,  they  are  in  the  best  position  to
determine the validity of an EPR and they have  sufficiently  justified  the
replacement of the original EPR.  As a new  supervisor,  he  was  not  fully
versed in the EPR review process, and had no experience with which to  gauge
his performance.  He now fully understands the criteria of evaluating  one’s
performance against their peers and did, in  fact,  rate  the  applicant  on
faulty assumptions.  The applicant deserves nothing less  than  a  “5”  EPR.
The direct supervisors and  the  squadron  commander  all  concur  that  the
contested EPR is not correct, therefore, it should be immediately  replaced.
 The only way to partially atone for the  injustice  done,  and  aggravation
caused  to  the  applicant,  is  to  replace  the  contested  EPR  with  the
reaccomplished EPR.

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

EPR profile since 1992 reflects the following:

          PERIOD ENDING      OVERALL EVALUATION

          11 May 92                     5
           1 Apr 93                     5
          18 Oct 93                     5
          18 Oct 94                     5
          18 Oct 95                     5
        * 18 Oct 96                     4
          18 Oct 97                     5
          18 Oct 98                     5

     *  Contested report.

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The Chief, Promotion, Evaluation and Recognition  Division,  Directorate  of
Personnel Program Management, HQ AFPC/DPPP, reviewed  this  application  and
states that the  rater  of  the  EPR  contends  he  attempted  to  submit  a
reaccomplished version of the EPR on 4 November  1996,  but  discovered  the
contested EPR had already became a matter of record.  They find no  evidence
from personnel  at  the  military  personnel  flight  (MPF)  or  commander’s
support staff (CSS) to substantiate  he  made  an  attempt  to  replace  the
report.

The rater also claims he would have upgraded the EPR if he  had  been  aware
of three letters of appreciation  the  applicant  had  received.   The  ERAB
explained in  their  26  November  1996  decision  memorandum  the  AFSPC/CE
recognition occurred during the previous reporting period and was  reflected
in the applicant’s 18 October 1995 EPR.  The Inspector General  Professional
Performer Award was recognized by the indorser in the contested  report  and
the other letters related to the prime beef sections support to the  Florida
Olympiad.  It is apparent the applicant’s  accomplishments  were  considered
and properly reflected on his evaluation reports.

The rater claims he was unaware the applicant  had  been  nominated  by  his
supervisor  to  receive  a  promotion  under  the  Stripes  for  Exceptional
Performers (STEP) program.  Since the indorser of the  report  (the  rater’s
supervisor)  prepared  the  STEP  package,  he  was  knowledgeable  of   the
accomplishment and considered it when making his promotion recommendation.

The applicant has not uncovered any accomplishment that  was  not  available
and considered by at least one of  the  two  evaluators  on  the  EPR.   The
applicant  did  not  provide  any  support  from  the  reviewing  commander.
Therefore, they recommend denial of applicant’s request.

A complete copy of the evaluation, with attachment, 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  the
first cycle the contested EPR was used in the promotion process was 97E7  to
MSgt (promotions effective August 1997 -- July 1998).  If the contested  EPR
is removed as he requests, he would be entitled  to  supplemental  promotion
beginning with the 97E7 cycle.  He would not be selected for this cycle  but
would become a selectee for the  98E7  cycle  (promotions  effective  August
1998 -- July 1999) pending a favorable  data  verification  review  and  the
recommendation of his commander.  They defer to  the  recommendation  of  HQ
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 27  March
1999 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.  In this respect, we note the  statements  submitted  from  the
rater and indorser indicating that during the period in question  there  was
a significant  amount  of  time  they  were  both  TDY  and  had  no  direct
observation of the applicant.  The rater and indorser both  agree  that  the
contested report is an inaccurate  assessment  of  applicant’s  performance.
In view of these statements and in  the  absence  of  evidence  to  question
their integrity, we recommend the contested  report  be  declared  void  and
replaced  with  a  reaccomplished  report  covering  the  same  period.   In
addition, we recommend he be provided supplemental  promotion  consideration
to the grade of master sergeant for cycle 98E7.

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 19 October 1995 through 18 October 1996, be, and hereby is,  declared
void and removed from his records.

   b.  The attached Enlisted Performance Report, AF Form 910,  rendered  for
the period 19 October  1995  through  18 October  1996,  be  placed  in  his
records in the proper sequence.

It is further recommended that he  be  provided  supplemental  consideration
for promotion to the grade of master sergeant for cycle 98E7.

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  on  the
date of rank 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 29 June 1999, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

            Mr. Robert Zook, Panel Chair
            Mr. Philip Sheruerman, Member
            Ms. Olga M. Crerar, Member

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

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 18 February 1999, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPP, dated 8 March 1999, w/atchs.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPPWB, dated 4 March 1999.
   Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 22 March 1999.





                 ROBERT ZOOK
                 Panel Chair


AFBCMR 99-00555





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 19 October 1995 through 18 October 1996, be, and hereby is, declared
void and removed from his records.

      b.  The attached Enlisted Performance Report, AF Form 910, rendered
for the period 19 October 1995 through 18 October 1996, be placed in his
records in the proper sequence.

      It is further directed that he be provided supplemental consideration
for promotion to the grade of master sergeant for cycle 98E7.

      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 on the
date of rank 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