RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  98-01229
            INDEX CODE:  111.02

            COUNSEL:  None

            HEARING DESIRED:  No


_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

The Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) rendered for the  period  11 Mar
96 through 10 Mar 97 be declared void and removed from her records.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

During  the  period  in  question,  a  serious  personality   conflict
developed between the  rater  and  herself.   The  problems  developed
because the rater was being forced to retire from the  Air  Force  and
her career should not  suffer  because  of  a  disgruntled  Air  Force
officer.  Previous EPRs written and/or indorsed by the rater are  true
assessments of her performance.

Applicant’s complete submission is attached at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant’s Total Active Federal Military Service Date  is  27 Jul
87.  She is current serving in the Regular Air Force in the  grade  of
staff sergeant, effective, and with a date of rank (DOR) of 1 Feb 95.

Applicant’s Airman Performance Report (APR) and EPR profile follows:

            PERIOD ENDING          OVERALL EVALUATION

              26 Jul 88                    9
              26 Jul 89                    4 (New rating system)
              26 Jul 90                    4
              10 Mar 91                    4
              10 Mar 92                    5
              10 Mar 93                    5
              10 Mar 94                    5
              10 Mar 95                    5
              10 Mar 96                    5
            * 10 Mar 97                    3
               8 Sep 97                    4
              30 Jun 98                    5

     *  Contested report.

Two similar applications were submitted under the provisions of AFR 36-
2401, Correcting Officer and  Enlisted  Evaluation  Reports.   On  the
first application, the Evaluation Reports Appeal Board (ERAB) was  not
convinced by the applicant’s documentation and denied the appeal.   On
the second application,  the  applicant  failed  to  provide  any  new
documentation and indicated she desired reconsideration of her  appeal
and approval based on the  quality  of  her  records.   Since  no  new
documentation was presented,  the  ERAB  declined  to  reconsider  her
request.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The  Chief,  Inquiries/AFBCMR  Section,  AFPC/DPPPWB,  reviewed   this
application and indicated that the first time the contested report was
considered in the  promotion  process  was  cycle  98E6  to  technical
sergeant (promotions effective Aug 98 - Jul  99).   Should  the  Board
void the report in  its  entirety,  or  upgrade  the  overall  rating,
providing she is otherwise eligible, the applicant will be entitled to
supplemental promotion consideration beginning with cycle  98E6.   The
applicant will not become a selectee during this cycle  if  the  Board
grants the request.

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

The  Chief,  BCMR  &  SSB  Section,  AFPC/DPPPA,  also  reviewed  this
application and indicated that disagreements in the work place are not
unusual and, in and of themselves, do not  substantiate  an  evaluator
cannot be objective.  Noticeably absent is a statement from anyone  in
the rating chain at the time the report was rendered  to  confirm/deny
the allegation.  Instead, the applicant has provided  statements  from
other personnel not in the rating chain.  The letters of  support  and
other extraneous documents which she provides are not germane  to  the
report in question.  None of the testimonials  the  applicant  submits
state the evaluators rated her inaccurately.  Further,  DPPPA  is  not
convinced of their ability to more accurately assess  her  performance
considering they were not the individuals charged with performing this
responsibility.  Further, the  applicant  has  not  provided  specific
instances  based  on  firsthand  observation  which  substantiate  the
relationship between her and her rater was strained to the point  that
an objective evaluation was impossible.  If a personality conflict was
as evident as the applicant perceived,  DPPPA  believes  the  indorser
would have noted this and made  any  necessary  adjustment(s)  to  the
applicant’s EPR.   The  indorser  concurred  with  the  evaluation  as
written, and, as such, DPPPA can only conclude the  contested  EPR  is
accurate as written.

DPPPA further states  that  an  evaluation  report  is  considered  to
represent the rating chain’s best judgment at the time it is  rendered
and once a report is accepted for file, only strong  evidence  to  the
contrary warrants correction or removal from an  individual’s  record.
The burden of proof is on the applicant and she has not  substantiated
the contested report was not rendered in good faith by all  evaluators
based on knowledge available at the time.  Further, while she contends
the contested report is inconsistent with previous performance, it  is
not feasible 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.  Based on the evidence provided, DPPPA recommends  denial
of applicant’s request.

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
13 Jul 98 for review and response.  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.    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  contested  report  should  be  declared  void  and
removed from her records.  Her 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 recommendation of the Air Force and adopt the
rationale expressed as the basis for our decision that  the  applicant
has failed to sustain her burden that she 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 4 March 1999, under the provisions of  Air  Force
Instruction 36-2603:

                  Mr. Douglas J. Heady, Panel Chair
                  Mr. Joseph A. Roj, Member
                  Ms. Peggy E. Gordon, Member
                Mrs. Joyce Earley, Examiner (without vote)

The following documentary evidence was considered:

     Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 27 Apr 98, w/atchs.
     Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
     Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPWB, dated 25 Jun 98.
     Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPA, dated 29 Jun 98.
     Exhibit E.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 13 Jul 98.




                                   DOUGLAS J. HEADY
                                   Panel Chair