RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  00-00256
            INDEX NUMBER:  111.02

      XXXXXXXXXXXXX    COUNSEL:  No

      XXXXXXXXXXXXX    HEARING DESIRED:  Yes

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

The Enlisted Performance Report  (EPR)  rendered  on  him  for  the
period 11 March 1996 through 10 March  1997  be  removed  from  his
records and he receive supplemental promotion consideration to  the
grade of Chief Master Sergeant (E-9) beginning with cycle 97E9.

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The contested EPR is an unjust evaluation.

His rater supervised him through e-mail  because  of  the  distance
between their work sites.

He had an inflammatory relationship with his rater that  is  proven
by the e-mail between them.  They also had an  established  history
of  professional  disagreements  prior  to  the   start   date   of
supervision.

There is a discrepancy between the rating of the  EPR  in  question
and others he received in his career.  During the period of the EPR
in  question,  he  received  the  Wing  Annual  Communications  and
Information management Professional of the Year Award.   His  rater
only sent an e-mail and never  personally  congratulated  him.   He
states that his commander also never recognized the achievement.

He was transferred from the Air Post Office after an incident where
he pointed out to his rater that he (rater) had violated  a  postal
regulation.

His contention that the  EPR  in  question  is  unjust  is  further
supported by the fact that the commander  supported  award  of  the
Meritorious Service Medal to him which  states  that  he  performed
with “outstanding leadership.”

The denial of his appeal to the  Evaluation  Reports  Appeal  Board
(ERAB) resulted from their policy prohibiting acceptance of  e-mail
as official documentation.

The applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.

___________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Information taken from  the  Personnel  Data  System  reflects  the
applicant’s  Total  Active  Federal  Military   Service   Date   as
15 Aug 1975.  He is currently serving on active duty in  the  grade
of Senior Master Sergeant (SMSgt).  The applicant’s last  ten  EPRs
reflect overall ratings of “5.”  The applicant was marked down  one
block in the leadership performance factor on the EPR in  question.
The applicant has not been marked down in  any  performance  factor
before or since this EPR.

___________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The   Inquiries/AFBCMR   Section,   AFPC/DPPPWB,   evaluated   this
application and deferred  to  the  overall  recommendation  of  the
Promotion, Evaluation, and Recognition Division, AFPC/DPPP.

They advised that if the applicant’s request is granted,  he  would
be entitled to supplemental promotion consideration beginning  with
cycle 97E9.

The complete evaluation is at Exhibit C.

AFPC/DPPP also evaluated this application and recommends denial  of
the applicant’s request.

The applicant failed to provide any information or support from the
rating chain on the contested EPR.  In the absence  of  information
from  the  rating  chain,  official  substantiation  of  error   or
injustice from the Inspector General or Military Equal  Opportunity
is appropriate, but not provided in this case.

What appears to be a very valid argument on  the  applicant’s  part
is,  unfortunately,  one-sided  with  no  clear-cut   evidence   of
unfairness, reprisal, or inaccuracy in evaluation.   The  applicant
has not provided conclusive evidence to show the  contested  report
was not rendered in good faith  by  all  evaluators  based  on  the
knowledge available at the time.

The complete evaluation is at Exhibit D.

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant reviewed the Air Force evaluations and disagrees with
their findings and recommendation.

He states that the basis for his request as stated  in  AFPC/DPPP’s
advisory is inaccurate and misleading.  The applicant  states  that
his request is based on the fact that  his  rater  was  biased  and
prejudiced because of differences in leadership styles.   Animosity
and  hostility  existed  in  the  relationship  because  of   these
differences and is reflected in the inflammatory and antagonistic e-
mails,  the  preference  of  no  contact  by  the  rater,  and  the
prejudicial assessment by the rater that is out of  character  with
the other  performance  reports  in  his  records.   The  applicant
stresses that these three pieces of evidence, when  taken  together
are relevant, credible, and believable and form the basis  for  his
request.

The applicant also points out that AFPC/DPPP references an outdated
version of AFI 36-2401, Correcting Officer and Enlisted  Evaluation
Reports.  The applicant uses this as an example to show that  proof
can be offered without being the result  of  an  Inspector  General
complaint.

He disagrees with AFPC/DPPP’s statement that  it  is  necessary  to
hear from all members of  the  rating  chain  in  an  appeal.   The
applicant states that he sought statements from his peers that knew
him at the time.  He attached three letters from these  individuals
as well as a statement from his wife.

The applicant states that another factor that may have  contributed
to his being marked down in leadership  was  his  completion  of  a
survey where he identified squadron leadership as average to  below
average based on the treatment he had received.

The applicant again points out the significance of the copies of  e-
mails he has provided with his application.  He  states  that  they
are  convincing  evidence  of  the  prejudicial  relationship  that
existed at the time the EPR in question was accomplished.

The applicant asks  that  the  Board  not  believe  that  the  only
convincing proof is that in the form of  a  written  or  videotaped
confession.

The applicant’s complete response is 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.  We  took
notice of the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits
of the case.  In reviewing the copies of e-mails emphasized by  the
applicant, the Board did not  find  evidence  to  substantiate  the
inflammatory relationship he contends existed between  he  and  the
rater.  While the markdown in the leadership performance factor  on
the contested report is inconsistent with other reports rendered on
the applicant, this factor alone does not make the rating  invalid.
Therefore, based on the available evidence of record,  we  find  no
basis upon which to favorably consider this application.

4.  The applicant's case is adequately documented and  it  has  not
been shown that a personal appearance with or without counsel  will
materially  add  to  our  understanding  of  the  issue   involved.
Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorably considered.
___________________________________________________________________

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 15 June 2000, under the provisions of AFI  36-
2603:

      Mr. Henry Romo, Jr., Panel Chair
      Mr. E. David Hoard, Member
      Mr. Clarence D. Long, III, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 28 Jan 00, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPPPWB, dated 8 Feb 00.
    Exhibit D.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPPP, dated 8 Mar 00.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 24 Mar 00.
    Exhibit F.  Memorandum, Applicant, dated 13 Apr 00.




                                   HENRY ROMO, JR.
                                   Panel Chair