RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  99-00562
            INDEX CODE: 111.02

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  YES


_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

The Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) rendered  for  the  period    26
November 1995 through 5 May 1996 be declared void and removed from her
record.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

Based on events during this period,  the  EPR  does  not  reflect  the
truth.  This EPR was written out of malice, prejudice and untruths.

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.

EPR profile since 1994 reflects the following:

      PERIOD ENDING                 EVALUATION OF POTENTIAL

        25 Nov 94                         5
        25 Nov 95                         5
        *5 May 96                         4
         5 May 97                         5
         5 May 98                         5
        18 Jan 99                         5

      *Contested Report

_________________________________________________________________




AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The Chief, Promotion, Evaluation and Recognition Division,  AFPC/DPPP,
reviewed the application and states that 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  also
for clarification and explanation.  In this case,  the  applicant  has
failed to provide any information or support from the rating chain  on
the contested report.  They state, in the absence of information  from
her evaluators, official substantiation of error or injustice from the
Inspector General (IG) or Social Actions (SA) is appropriate, but  not
provided by the applicant.  The applicant claims she kept  memorandums
for record with dates and times  documenting  the  ill  treatment  she
received from her rater during the contested reporting  period.   They
ask, if after keeping such accurate records, why did she  not  file  a
complaint with SA or the IG, especially if  she  felt  she  was  being
treated poorly?  In reference to the applicant’s 18-page opinion, they
state, an opinion is not evidence.  Because she does not  include  any
official evidence to document her allegations, they believe the report
was accomplished in direct accordance with applicable regulations.

In reference to the applicant contending her rater  did  not  directly
supervise her for the number of days indicated on  the  report  (140),
Air Force policy, AFI 36-2403,  paragraph  4.3.9.2,  states  that  120
days’ supervision are required before accomplishing an EPR,  and  only
TDY or leave periods of 30 consecutive days or more are deducted  from
the number of days supervision.  The applicant claims that her  former
rater was absent from 26 November 1995 to 17 December 1995 (22  days),
   29 January 1996 to 28 February 1996 (31 days), and 29 February 1996
to 13 March 1996 (14 days).  However, in  order  to  substantiate  the
number of days supervision on the report are erroneous, the  applicant
must  obtain  a  copy  of  her  former  rater’s  paid  travel  voucher
documenting  the  31-day  absence  from  her  duty  station.   If  the
applicant is able to do so, and if the period of absence was, in fact,
30 days or more, they would then deduct those days from the number  of
days’ supervision on the contested report.  If the rating period  fell
below the 120 days required to render an evaluation  report,  the  EPR
would be invalid.

In reference  to  the  applicant  contending  her  rater  coerced  the
indorser and reviewer of the report to concur with the  “4”  promotion
recommendation in Section IV, PROMOTION RECOMMENDATION, and the front-
side  mark  downs  she  received  in  Section   III,   EVALUATION   OF
PERFORMANCE, on the contested EPR; they note that  the  rater  of  the
report was a senior master sergeant (SMSgt), the indorser  a  colonel,
and the reviewing commander a major.  They ask, what sort of force  or
threat could the rater, a SMSgt, have over the  superior  officers  in
her rating chain?  They further state  that  the  Air  Force  requires
indorsers, reviewers, and commanders to review evaluation reports  for
quality  and  to  control  inflationary  tendencies.   Indorsers   and
reviewers who concur with a rater’s evaluation of an  individual  have
not been coerced.

In reference to the  applicant  stating  that  the  contested  EPR  is
inconsistent with her previous and subsequent duty  performance;  they
point out that it is not reasonable to compare one report  covering  a
certain period of time with another report covering a different period
of time.  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 or subsequent performance.

In reference to the applicant  stating  that  she  only  received  one
performance feedback during the reporting period at  the  four-  month
point, and only 42 days prior to the closeout date of  the  EPR;  they
state, while raters are required to render feedback, it is the ratee’s
responsibility to be aware of when feedback sessions are  due  and  to
notify the rater’s rater  when  the  required  or  requested  feedback
sessions do not take  place.   Although  the  applicant  contends  she
requested feedback from her rater but  was  continually  put-off,  she
provided nothing from  her  rating  chain  to  substantiate  she  then
elevated her request to  her  rater’s  rater.   They  state,  lack  of
counseling or feedback, by itself, is not sufficient to challenge  the
accuracy or justness of a report.

In reference to the applicant stating that her rater  was  jealous  of
her and may have been threatened  by  her  stellar  performance,  they
state that the rater and indorser of  the  report  both  document  the
applicant allowed personal problems and office  restructure  (addition
of a master sergeant) to negatively impact her positive  attitude  and
quality of work during the  reporting  period.   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 or  require  close  supervision  may
believe that an evaluator is personally biased; however, the  conflict
generated by this personal attention is  usually  professional  rather
than personal.  The EPR is not an inaccurate assessment  of  her  duty
performance just because she believes it is.  Therefore, based on  the
lack of  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,   reviewed   the
application and states that should the Board void the contested in its
entirety, upgrade the overall rating, or make  any  other  significant
change, providing the applicant is otherwise eligible,  the  applicant
will be entitled to supplemental  promotion  consideration  commencing
with cycle 97E7.  However, she will not become a  select  during  this
cycle if the AFBCMR grants the request.  The applicant became a select
during the 98E7 cycle with a date of rank  and  effective  date  of  1
November 1998.  It would serve no useful purpose to provide  her  with
supplemental consideration for the 97E7 cycle as   she  could  not  be
selected.

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

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Applicant reviewed the Air Force evaluation and states  that  contrary
to the assumption that is made in the advisory, she is  not  disputing
the fact that an EPR was due.  What she is disputing is the basis  for
the report, the ratings, the lack of supervision  and  the  number  of
days’ supervision, to mention a few.

The EPR should only reflect  a  maximum  of  130  days  based  on  her
calculations.  There was only one period where at least 30 consecutive
days could be deducted, 29 January 1996 through     28 February  1996,
when her supervisor was hospitalized and on  convalescent  leave.   Of
the 130-day period, because of the  supervisor’s  hospitalization  and
convalescent leave and her leave, she was not directly  supervised  by
the supervisor for 82 days.  Her EPR was  written  based  on  48  days
direct supervision.

She believes this EPR was not based on her performance, non-compliance
of standards, conduct,  supervision,  personal  circumstances  or  any
restructure of the Personnel office, but based on her decision  to  go
the commander concerning  her  lack  of  utilization  in  the  office.
Therefore, she requests the Board’s consideration to withdraw this EPR
from her records.

Applicant's  complete  response,  with  attachments,  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.   While  it  would  have
been helpful to have statements from the applicant’s rating chain,  in
view of the statement from her previous rater and noting her otherwise
outstanding performance record, we believe sufficient doubt exists  as
to the accuracy of the contested report.  Therefore, 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  the  Enlisted
Performance Report, AF Form 910, rendered  for  the  period         26
November 1995 through 5 May 1996, be declared void  and  removed  from
her records.

_________________________________________________________________

The following members of the  Board  considered  this  application  in
Executive Session on 29 July 1999, under the  provisions  of  AFI  36-
2603:

                 Mr. Henry Romo Jr., Panel Chair
                 Mrs. Margaret A. Zook, Member
                 Mr. Gregory H. Petkoff, Member
                 Ms. Phyllis L. Spence, Examiner (without vote)

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

      Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 22 Feb 99.
      Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
      Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPPP, dated 17 Mar 99.
      Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/DPPWB, dated 12 Mar 99.
      Exhibit E. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 29 Mar 99.
      Exhibit F. Applicant’s Response, undated.




                             HENRY ROMO, JR
                             Panel Chair



AFBCMR 99-00562





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 xxxxxxxx, be corrected to show that the Enlisted
Performance Report, AF Form 910, rendered for the period 26 November
1995 through 5 May 1996, be, and hereby is, declared void and removed
from her records.






                             JOE G. LINEBERGER
                             Director
                             Air Force Review Boards Agency