RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  99-00726
            INDEX CODE:  111.00

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

The  Enlisted  Performance  Report  (EPR)  rendered  for  the   period
16 November 1993  through  15  November  1994  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.

The rater stated in a feedback session that he  would  receive  a  “5”
rating and when the EPR was finalized and placed in  his  records  the
rating was a “4.”  When this was brought to the rater’s attention,  he
stated that he signed a blank AF Form 910 due to being on leave during
the time the final draft went through the orderly room.

He feels that this has put his  promotion  advancement  on  hold.   He
missed technical sergeant (TSgt) by three points in  the  1997  cycle,
and according to his calculations, if the EPR had been a “5” he  would
have made TSgt in 1997.  He is currently a TSgt due to  the  selection
in the 1998 cycle.

In support of the appeal, applicant submits a personal statement,  the
Evaluation Report Appeals  Board  (ERAB)  decision,  dated  21 October
1997, contested EPR, reaccomplished EPR, statements from the rater and
indorser, 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  twice  by  the
Evaluation Report Appeals Board (ERAB).

EPR profile since 1992 reflects the following:

          PERIOD ENDING      OVERALL EVALUATION

            1 Jan 92                     5
            1 Jan 93                     5
           15 Nov 93                     5
         * 15 Nov 94                     4
           15 Nov 95                     5
           15 Oct 96                     5
           18 Jun 97                     5
           18 Jun 98                     5
            2 Mar 99                     5

     *  Contested report.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The Chief, Inquiries/AFBCMR Section,  Enlisted  Promotion  &  Military
Testing Branch, HQ AFPC/DPPPWB, reviewed this application  and  states
that the first  time  the  contested  report  was  considered  in  the
promotion process was cycle 95E6  to  technical  sergeant  (promotions
effective August  95  -  July  1996).   Should  the  AFBCMR  void  the
contested report 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  95E6.   The
applicant will not become a select during cycle 95E6 or  96E6  if  the
AFBCMR grants the request but would become a select for the 97E6 cycle
pending a favorable data verification and the  recommendation  of  the
commander.  The applicant became a select during the 98E6 cycle with a
date of rank and effective date of 1 December  1998.   Therefore,  the
defer to the recommendation of AFPC/DPPPAB.

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

The Chief, Promotion, Evaluation and Recognition Division, Directorate
of Personnel Program Management,  HQ  AFPC/DPPP,  also  reviewed  this
application and states that the applicant provided  a  statement  from
the rater of the report who admits he signed blank  forms  (prohibited
by AFI 36-2403, paragraph 4.2.8.8) because he was going to be on leave
when the report was finalized (it  is  against  Air  Force  policy  to
complete an EPR prior to the closeout date of the report [AFI  3-2403,
Table 3.1n, Note 5.2].  In so doing, the rater relinquished his rating
responsibility to  someone  else  (also  prohibited  by  AFI  26-2401,
paragraph 4.2.7.2).


In his 7 March 1995 letter, the indorser claims  he  was  unaware  the
ratings on the report were erroneous.  Then on 11 September  1995,  he
states he did not recall the Section III ratings being  straight  down
the excellent column at that time.  Two years later (19 June 1997)  he
claims “the problem indicated in the 11 September 1995 appeal  request
was a one time incident that was quickly resolved by [applicant] --  I
still maintain that there are serious doubts as to the validity of the
original report submitted.”  If he had doubts about  the  validity  of
the markings, why did he sign the report in  the  first  place?   What
sort of one-time problem existed during the reporting period that  may
have caused the report to be “downgraded” (the rater is  also  charged
with  considering  the  significance  and   frequency   of   incidents
[including isolated instances of poor or outstanding performance] when
assessing total performance)?  More importantly, the rater  states  he
was on leave from 3-17 October 1994.  He does not state he was out  of
the local area or on temporary duty when the report closed out  on  15
November  1994.   Since  the  indorser  from  the  report  admits   he
questioned the rater  prior  to  signing  the  report  to  ensure  the
applicant  received  feedback  during  the   reporting   period,   it,
therefore, follows that they would have discussed  the  “4”  promotion
recommendation prior to signing the report.  Although the reviewer  of
the report recommends the report be upgraded to a  “5,”  he  does  not
specifically say what type of administrative oversight  occurred  when
the revisions were made to the report.

The applicant contends 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.

The applicant contends his rater was working in  a  new  duty  section
when the EPR was written,  and  therefore,  did  not  have  first-hand
knowledge of his duty performance.  The Air Force charges a  rater  to
examine the results of the ratee’s work and get meaningful information
from the ratee and as many sources as possible, especially  when  they
cannot observe the ratee personally.  In this instance, the rater does
not indicate he lacked adequate knowledge  to  properly  evaluate  the
applicant.

The applicant asserts the indorser from the contested report  did  not
have first-hand knowledge of  his  duty  performance  and,  therefore,
“would more than likely agree with the evaluation that was  stated  on
the EPR.”  The indorser indicated in his memorandums he did  not  just
agree with the ratings on the report.  He indicated he made  inquiry's
first, then  concurred  with  the  ratings.   The  Air  Force  charges
evaluators with rendering fair and  accurate  EPRs  and  ensuring  the
comments support the ratings.  Subsequent evaluators are not  required
to have “first-hand knowledge” of the ratee  --  if  they  feel  their
knowledge is insufficient, they  may  obtain  information  from  other
reliable sources.

The applicant contends his rater told him he would receive an  overall
“5” promotion recommendation on the EPR and was, therefore, shocked to
learn he had received a “4.”  There may  be  occasions  when  after  a
positive feedback session, an  evaluator  discovers  serious  problems
that he or she must take into consideration even though they  disagree
with the previous feedback.  The indorser of the  report  admits  some
sort of problem occurred during the reporting period.   The  fact  the
rater was not able to provide another feedback  during  the  reporting
period to document the “problem  area”  does  not  render  the  report
inaccurate or the evaluation unfair.  As mentioned above,  raters  are
charged with considering the significance and frequency  of  incidents
when assessing total performance.  Therefore, they recommend denial of
applicant’s request.

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

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant reviewed the  advisory  opinions  and  states  that  the
advisory focused on letters from the indorser, quoting statements from
his 7 March 1995, 19 June 1997, and 11  September  1995  letters  that
claims he was unaware the rating on the report was erroneous; that  he
did not recall Section III ratings being straight down  the  excellent
column; the problem in the 11 September 1995 appeal request was a  one
time incident that was quickly resolved by applicant.  Also,  that  he
maintains that there are serious doubts as  to  the  validity  of  the
original report submitted.  The question the Air  Force  ask  is  what
type of one time problem existed?  The indorser was referring  to  his
divorce proceedings that were finalized as of 15 July 1994, during the
rating period.   This  is  the  incident  to  which  the  indorser  is
referring to in his 19 June 1997 letter.  The indorser was well  aware
of his divorce during the rating period.  The indorser also states  in
the letter that he questioned if a  feedback  had  been  accomplished,
nowhere in the letter does it state that a rating was discussed.

In section “h” of HQ AFPC/DPPP letter, it is stated that an  evaluator
discovers serious problems that must be taken into consideration  even
though they disagree with  the  previous  feedback.   He  states  that
feedback  was  completed  20 September  1994,  and   if   there   were
significant events that would change a rating, why would the rater not
provide  another  feedback  session.   According   to   the   Enlisted
Evaluation Training Guide dated  15 April  1996,  page  C-2,  feedback
gives information to the ratee, without it the ratee  has  no  way  of
knowing how to  improve,  and  how  to  adjust  towards  the  expected
outcome.

In the rater’s 3 March 1995, letter he states that the final draft was
due to the orderly room during the time he was on leave, so he  signed
a blank AF Form 911, and left instructions on how it was to be marked.
 He submitted two  letters  from  the  administrative  personnel  that
clarifies that  signing  blank  EPRs  was  standard  procedures.   The
administrative error that the reviewer failed to explain is  explained
in the commander’s letter.

Applicant's complete response is attached at Exhibit F.

_________________________________________________________________

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.   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
the report was mismarked.  They  state  that  applicant  has  been  an
overall “5” performer and has done an outstanding  job  in  performing
his duties.  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 97E6.

_________________________________________________________________

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 16 November 1993 through 15 November 1994, be,  and  hereby
is, declared void and removed from his records.


      b.  The attached  Enlisted  Performance  Report,  AF  Form  910,
rendered for the period 16 November 1993 through 15 November 1994,  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
97E6.

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 15 July 1999, under the  provisions  of  AFI  36-
2603:

            Mrs. Barbara A. Westgate, Panel Chair
            Ms. Ann L. Heidig, Member
            Mr. Mike Novel, Member

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

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 25 February 1999, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPPWB, dated 24 March 1999.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPP, dated 12 April 1999
   Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated  April 1999.
   Exhibit F.  Letter, Applicant, dated 10 May 1999.




                 BARBARA A. WESTGATE
                 Panel Chair


AFBCMR 99-00726





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 xxxxxxxxxx, be corrected to show that:

               a.  The Enlisted Performance Report, AF Form 910,
rendered for the period 16 November 1993 through 15 November 1994, be,
and hereby is, declared void and removed from his records.

               b.  The attached Enlisted Performance Report, AF Form
910, rendered for the period 16 November 1993 through 15 November
1994, 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
97E6.

      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