RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  99-00723
            INDEX CODE:  111.02, 111.05

                 COUNSEL:  None

                 HEARING DESIRED:  Yes

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

The Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) rendered for the  period  3 Mar
97 through 2 Mar 98 be declared void and removed from her records.

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

When  the  initial  report  was  sent  back  to  the   indorser   for
reaccomplishment of his comments, the EPR should have been  referred.
She  was  not  given  the  opportunity  to   provide   comments   for
consideration  in  the  rating.   The  indorser’s  comments  on   the
contested  report  do  not  accurately  portray  her   character   or
performance not only during this reporting period but  also  for  her
entire Air Force career.  She believes she has provided  overwhelming
evidence from her  rater’s  comments,  Air  Force  Achievement  Medal
(AFAM) narrative,  and  personal  character  reference  letters  that
challenge the indorser’s comments and rating.  This report  was  also
not properly managed by the Enlisted Evaluation System (EES).

In support of her appeal, the applicant provided copies of her  EPRs,
letters of character reference, a copy of the 1 Oct  98  AFI  36-2401
decision, a copy of the 28 Jan 99 AFI 36-2401 decision, and a copy of
her AFAM narrative.

Applicant’s complete submission is attached at Exhibit A.

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant’s Total Active Federal Military Service  Date  (TAFMSD)
is 26 Jun 85.  She is currently serving in the Regular Air  Force  in
the grade of technical sergeant, effective, and with a date  of  rank
(DOR) of 1 May 97.

Applicant’s EPR profile follows:

            PERIOD ENDING          OVERALL EVALUATION

             30 Sep 90                     5
             30 Sep 91                     5
             30 Sep 92                     5
              2 Mar 93                     5
              2 Mar 94                     5
              2 Mar 95                     5
              2 Mar 96                     5
              2 Mar 97                     5
            * 2 Mar 98                     3
             15 Feb 99                     5
             25 Jun 99                     5

     *  Contested report.

A similar application was submitted  under  AFI  36-2401,  Correcting
Officer and Enlisted Report Reports.  The  Evaluation  Report  Appeal
Board (ERAB) agreed with the fact that the  indorser  and  the  rater
nonconcurred and directed that Sections VI (Indorser’s Comments)  and
VII (Commander’s Review) of the report be reaccomplished  to  include
at least one statement from the indorser  addressing  nonconcurrence.
The report has now been corrected and the corrected  version  of  the
EPR is the one the applicant is now taking issue with.

Officials at AFPC/DPPPWB indicate applicant was not  promoted  during
cycle 99E7.  Her score was 309.92 and the cutoff was 334.01.

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The  Chief,  Inquiries/AFBCMR  Section,  AFPC/DPPPWB,  reviewed  this
application and indicated that the contested EPR  has  not  yet  been
eligible for consideration in the  promotion  process.   It  will  be
considered the next cycle to master sergeant, 99E7, provided  she  is
recommended by her commander and is otherwise  eligible.   Selections
for the 99E7 cycle will  be  done  approximately  20 May  99.   If  a
favorable  decision  is  not  received  by  7 May  99,   supplemental
promotion  consideration  will  be  required,  assuming  she  is  not
selected with the report during the initial selection process.

A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit B.

The Chief, Appeals &  SSB  Branch,  AFPC/DPPPA,  also  reviewed  this
application and indicated that AFI  36-2403,  attachment  1,  defines
referral reports as those with a rating in  the  far  left  block  in
Section III (Evaluation of Performance);  a  rating  of  “1”  -  “not
recommended for promotion” in Section IV (Promotion  Recommendation);
or, comments that refer to behavior not  meeting  minimal  acceptable
standards of performance, personal conduct, character, or  integrity.
When the report was returned to the indorser for reaccomplishment  of
his comments, it was up to him to determine what  it  was  about  the
applicant’s duty performance that was lacking and make comment on it.
 Further, it was his prerogative to  determine  whether  or  not  the
applicant’s duty performance met standards.   If  he  had  determined
applicant’s duty performance did not meet standards,  he  would  have
been required to refer the  report  to  the  applicant  for  comment.
Apparently the indorser  believed  the  applicant’s  performance  met
“minimal acceptable  standards  of  performance”  and,  as  such,  no
referral  was  necessary.   His  nonconcurrence  with   the   rater’s
evaluation of the applicant does not make the report a referral  (AFI
36-2403, paragraph 4.9.4).

The letters of support which the applicant provides are  not  germane
to the report in question.  The testimonials she submits do not state
the evaluators rated her inaccurately nor would DPPPA be convinced of
their ability to more accurately assess her  performance  considering
they  were  not  the  individuals  charged   with   performing   this
responsibility.

In regard to  applicant’s  contentions  that  the  contested  EPR  is
inconsistent with previous  performance,  it  is  not  reasonable  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, AFI  36-2403.   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.  Further, DPPPA opines that the indorser was fully aware
of how well the applicant could perform her duties as he was also the
indorser on her previous 2 Mar 97 EPR.

Finally, Air Force policy is that an evaluation report is accurate as
written when it  becomes  a  matter  of  record  and  to  effectively
challenge an EPR, it is necessary to hear from all the members of the
rating chain—not only for support but for  clarification/explanation.
Obvious by their absence is any type of information/support from  the
rating chain on the contested EPR.  In  the  absence  of  information
from evaluators, official substantiation of error or  injustice  from
the Inspector General (IG) or Social Actions is appropriate, but  not
provided in this case.  It appears the reports were  accomplished  in
direct accordance with applicable regulations and the burden of proof
is on the applicant.  She has not substantiated the contested  report
was not rendered in good faith by all evaluators based  on  knowledge
available at  the  time.   Based  on  the  evidence  provided,  DPPPA
recommends denial.

A complete copy of the Air  Force  evaluation,  with  attachment,  is
attached at Exhibit C.

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Applicant reviewed the Air Force evaluations and provided a  two-page
response with a copy of her most recent EPR closing 15 Feb 99.

Applicant’s  complete  response,  with  attachment,  is  attached  at
Exhibit E.

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 warranting  the  voidance
and replacement of the contested  report.   Initially  when  applicant
appealed the contested report under the provisions of AFI 36-2401, she
asserted that the report did not accurately  reflect  her  performance
during the contested time period.  While the ERAB did not  agree  with
her assertion, they did return the report to the indorser in order for
him to include a statement regarding  why  he  nonconcurred  with  the
rater’s evaluation.  Applicant now contends that she should  have  had
the opportunity to rebut the comments made  by  the  indorser  on  the
reaccomplished report because she believes  these  comments  make  the
report a referral report.  Essentially, applicant  contends  that  the
contested report was a result  of  a  personality  conflict  with  the
indorser of the  report.   However,  after  thoroughly  reviewing  the
evidence  of  record,  we  find  insufficient  evidence   to   support
applicant’s contention that a personality  conflict  resulted  in  the
downgraded promotion recommendation.  In this  respect,  we  note  the
indorser was the same individual who  indorsed  applicant’s  preceding
EPR; therefore, we are persuaded  that  he  was  fully  aware  of  her
performance potential and that his  overall  promotion  recommendation
was  more  appropriate  than  the   rater’s   evaluation   considering
applicant’s behavior during the rating cycle.  Further  noted  is  the
fact that it  is  the  indorser’s  prerogative  to  determine  whether
applicant’s performance met standards and  if  the  report  should  be
referred.  Clearly, the indorser did not believe the report should  be
referred.   However,  the  problem  which  we  are  having  with   the
reaccomplished report is that, as now  written,  the  report  contains
derogatory comments which the indorser did not include in the original
report and apparently would not have included had it not been for  the
ERAB appeal.  We are  convinced  that  it  was  never  the  indorser’s
intention to include such comments in the report, but rather he simply
intended  to  assess   applicant’s   actual   performance   potential.
Therefore, we are  persuaded  that  the  contested  report  should  be
declared void and removed from applicant’s records and  replaced  with
the original EPR.

4.    Inasmuch as we find no basis upon which to  change  the  overall
rating of the contested report, supplemental  promotion  consideration
to the grade of master sergeant is not warranted.





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 EPR, AF Form 910, rendered for the  period  3 Mar  97
through 2 Mar  98,  and  reflecting  the  following  in  Section  VI,
Indorser’s  Comments,  “Skilled  technician  demonstrates   competent
performance and high level of  expertise  while  working  alone,”  be
declared void and removed from her records.

      b.    The attached EPR, AF Form 910, rendered  for  the  period
3 Mar 97 through 2 Mar 98, and reflecting the  following  in  Section
VI,  Indorser’s  Comments,   “Consistently   demonstrates   competent
performance and high level of  expertise--single  handedly  presented
all  program  information  and  evaluation  documentation  concerning
Occupational Injury/Illness and Fetal Protection Programs during  Air
Force Audit Agency visit--no deficiencies  noted  during  audit,”  be
inserted in her records in its proper sequence.

The following members of the Board  considered  this  application  in
Executive Session on 16 December 1999, under the provisions of AFI 36-
2603:

                  Ms. Martha Maust, Panel Chair
                  Ms. Nancy W. Drury, Member
              Ms. Rita J. Maldonado, Member

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

     Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 12 Mar 99, w/atchs.
     Exhibit B.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPWB, dated 23 Mar 99.
     Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPA, dated 26 Apr 99, w/atchs.
     Exhibit D.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 10 May 99.
     Exhibit E.  Letter fr applicant, dated 17 May 99, w/atch.





                                   MARTHA MAUST
                                   Panel Chair

INDEX CODE:  111.02, 111.05

AFBCMR 99-00723




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, be corrected to show that:

            a.   The EPR, AF Form 910, rendered for the period 3 Mar
97 through 2 Mar 98, and reflecting the following in Section VI,
Indorser’s Comments, “Skilled technician demonstrates competent
performance and high level of expertise while working alone,” be, and
hereby is, declared void and removed from her records.

            b.   The attached EPR, AF Form 910, rendered for the
period 3 Mar 97 through 2 Mar 98, and reflecting the following in
Section VI, Indorser’s Comments, “Consistently demonstrates competent
performance and high level of expertise--single handedly presented
all program information and evaluation documentation concerning
Occupational Injury/Illness and Fetal Protection Programs during Air
Force Audit Agency visit--no deficiencies noted during audit,” be
inserted in her records in its proper sequence.







                                                            JOE    G.
LINEBERGER
                                                         Director
                                                          Air   Force
Review Boards Agency


Attachment:
EPR closing 2 March 1998