RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  99-00739
            INDEX CODE:  111.02

            COUNSEL:  None

            HEARING DESIRED:  No

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

The Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) rendered for the period 2 Aug 96
through 1 Aug 97 be declared void and removed from his records.

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He never received his two feedbacks for this  EPR.   He  was  also  in
another squadron for six months out of the rating  period.   While  he
was in the Honor Guard, he was referred  to  as  the  perfect  example
airman.

In support of his appeal, the applicant provided copies  of  his  EPRs
and four supporting statements.

Applicant’s complete submission is attached at Exhibit A.

________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant’s Total Active Federal Military  Service  Date  (TAFMSD)
was 2 Dec 93.

Applicant’s EPR profile follows:

            PERIOD ENDING          OVERALL EVALUATION

              1 Aug 95                     3
              1 Aug 96                     4
            * 1 Aug 97                     2 (Referral Report)

     * Contested EPR.

On 30 Jul 97, applicant was notified  of  his  commander’s  intent  to
impose  nonjudicial  punishment  upon  him  for  dereliction  in   the
performance of his duties in that he willfully failed to refrain  from
removing his  Personal  Information  Folder  (PIF)  from  his  Element
Chief’s desk.

On 8 Aug 97, after consulting with counsel, applicant waived his right
to a trial by  court-martial,  requested  a  personal  appearance  and
submitted a written presentation.

On 15 Aug 97, he was found guilty by his  commander  who  imposed  the
following punishment:  Reduction from the grade of  senior  airman  to
airman first class, which was suspended until 14 Feb 98,  after  which
time it would  be  remitted  without  further  action,  unless  sooner
vacated; forfeiture of $250 pay a month  for  two  months,  which  was
suspended until 14 Feb 98, after  which  time  it  would  be  remitted
without further action, unless sooner vacated;  and,  45  days’  extra
duty.

Applicant did appeal the punishment; however, there is  no  indication
on the Article 15 whether his appeal was  denied  or  whether  it  was
filed in his Unfavorable Information File (UIF).

On 1 Dec 97, the applicant was discharged under the provisions of  AFI
36-3208 (Completion of Required  Active  Service)  with  an  honorable
characterization of service in the grade of senior airman with  an  RE
code of 2X (First-term, second-term, or career airman  considered  but
not selected for reenlistment under the Selective Reenlistment Program
(SRP).  He was credited with four years of active service.

________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The  Chief,  Inquiries/AFBCMR  Section,  AFPC/DPPPWB,  reviewed   this
application and indicated that the  first  time  the  referral  report
would have affected the promotion process  was  cycle  98E5  to  staff
sergeant (promotions effective Sep 98 - Aug 99).   However,  since  it
was  a  “referral”  report,  it  would  have  rendered  the  applicant
ineligible for promotion consideration, had be been on active duty for
this cycle.  He was released from  active  duty  on  1 Dec  97  before
testing for the 98E5 cycle.  Should the Board grant  his  request,  it
would not affect the promotion process since he was not on active duty
for the cycle affected by the EPR in question.

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

The Chief, Appeals  &  SSB  Branch,  AFPC/DPPPA,  also  reviewed  this
application and indicated that while the applicant  contends  that  he
did not receive his two feedbacks during the  contested  period,  they
note that the rater indicates in Section  V  (Rater’s  Comments)  that
feedbacks were conducted on 25 Sep 96 and 6 Mar 97.  The applicant has
provided no documentation to refute that counseling did not  occur  on
these dates.  Regardless, AFI 36-2403, paragraph 2.8, states that  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 he requested a  feedback  session
from his rater nor does he state he notified the rater or the indorser
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
the EPR.”  Only members in the rating chain can confirm if  counseling
was provided.  While current Air  Force  policy  requires  performance
feedback for  personnel,  a  direct  correlation  between  information
provided during feedback sessions and the  assessments  on  evaluation
reports does not necessarily exist.  For example, if after a  positive
feedback session, an evaluator discovers serious problems, he  or  she
must record the  problems  in  the  evaluation  report  even  when  it
disagrees with the previous feedback.  There  may  be  occasions  when
feedback was not provided  during  a  reporting  period  and  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.   The  member  must   also   supply   specific
information about the unfair  evaluation  so  the  Board  can  make  a
reasoned judgment on the appeal.

The applicant also states he was assigned to another squadron for  six
months  out  of  the  rating  period.   Again,  he  has  provided   no
documentation to substantiate his claim.  It is possible the applicant
could  have  been  placed  on  loan  from  his  squadron  but  without
documentation to prove otherwise, DPPPA can only conclude  the  number
of days of supervision  is  accurate.   Furthermore,  the  letters  of
support which the applicant provides are not germane to the report  in
question.  None of the testimonials he submits  state  the  evaluators
rated the applicant inaccurately  nor  is  DPPPA  convinced  of  their
ability to more accurately assess applicant’s performance  considering
they  were  not  the  individuals   charged   with   performing   this
responsibility.

While 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.  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  to
clarification/explanation.  The applicant has failed  to  provide  any
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  report
was accomplished in direct  accordance  with  applicable  regulations.
Based on the evidence provided, DPPPA recommends denial due to lack of
merit.

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

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Applicant reviewed the Air Force evaluations and stated, in part, that
the EPR he is writing about was done on or about the date of 1 Aug 97;
however, if this EPR was written on 1 Aug 97, then when he asked for a
copy of all his EPRs in his military records,  he  questions  why  was
this EPR not in his records.  He has copies of the first  two  and  no
more after that.  He got these copies on or about 10 Jul 97.  He wrote
and told SAF/MIBR that he never received any of the feedbacks  but  he
did find a copy of one he  received  on  25 Sep  96  for  the  EPR  in
question.  It reflects totally the opposite to a 2 EPR.  He thought he
was in the Honor Guard  during  the  second  half  of  the  evaluation
period.  He was told after he got back from Honor Guard there  was  an
EPR due on him and it would reflect the time he  spent  in  the  Honor
Guard.  His rater did not take any of the accomplishments he  made  at
the Honor Guard and reflect them on his EPR.   Furthermore,  he  never
received  the  second  feedback.   While  SAF/MIBR  also  states   the
feedbacks were conducted on 25 Sep 96 and 6 Mar  97,  he  started  the
Honor Guard a week prior to the second EPR feedback date so  he  never
received that feedback.

Applicant further states that he feels the EPR was given unjustly  and
not by his rater but by his Flight Chief.  He does not  remember  ever
getting an initial feedback when his rater changed.  This  entire  EPR
was unjustly given to him.  He was once told the ratee has to sign  an
EPR of a 2 or lower or a referral EPR; however, he never  signed  one.
Furthermore, the letters of support he provided state during the exact
time this EPR was written that his Flight Chief was in the  wrong  not
to reenlist him.  The whole fact that the letters were written  during
the EPR time is a perfect example of the fact that  his  Flight  Chief
has a vendetta against him and the EPR was  unjustly  written.   These
letters are pertinent because  of  the  fact  that  they  reflect  his
actions during the time of that EPR and his Flight Chief at  the  time
did not care what they had to say and still gave him a 2 EPR.

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
law or regulations.

2.    The application was timely filed.

3.    Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate
the existence of probable error or injustice.  After a thorough review
of the evidence of record  and  applicant’s  submission,  we  are  not
persuaded that the report in question  should  be  declared  void  and
removed from his records.  His contentions are duly noted; however, we
do not find these  assertions,  in  and  by  themselves,  sufficiently
persuasive to override the rationale provided by the  Air  Force.   We
therefore agree with the recommendations of the Air  Force  and  adopt
the rationale expressed  as  the  basis  for  our  decision  that  the
applicant has failed to sustain his burden that he has suffered either
an error or an injustice.  Therefore, we find no compelling  basis  to
recommend granting the relief sought.

________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:

The  applicant  be  notified  that  the  evidence  presented  did  not
demonstrate the existence of probable  material  error  or  injustice;
that the application was denied without  a  personal  appearance;  and
that the application will only be reconsidered upon the submission  of
newly  discovered  relevant  evidence   not   considered   with   this
application.

________________________________________________________________

The following members of the  Board  considered  this  application  in
Executive Session on 1 December 1999,  under  the  provisions  of  Air
Force Instruction 36-2603:

                  Mrs. Barbara A. Westgate, Panel Chair
                  Mr. William H. Anderson, Member
                  Mr. Philip Sheuerman, Member
                Mrs. Joyce Earley, Examiner (without vote)

The following documentary evidence was considered:

     Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 15 Mar 99, w/atchs.
     Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
     Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPWB, dated 9 Apr 99.
     Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPA, dated 13 May 99.
     Exhibit E.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 28 May 99.
     Exhibit F.  Letter fr applicant, dated 3 Jun 99,
                   w/atchs.




                                   BARBARA A. WESTGATE
                                   Panel Chair