RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  00-02173
            INDEX CODE:  111.02


            COUNSEL:  NONE


            HEARING DESIRED:  YES

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) rendered for the period 30 Aug
98 through 29 Aug 99 be declared void and removed from his records.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The  contested  EPR   inaccurately   reflects   his   overall   duty
performance.  The EPR uses the punishment of a Letter  of  Reprimand
(LOR) from a one-time incident that occurred at the  very  beginning
of the reporting period, which completely destroyed not only a whole
year of outstanding and excellent duty performance but a  career  as
well.  His midterm performance feedback and remarks within  the  EPR
substantiate the performance.  Derogatory statements in the EPR were
written in  a  misleading  plural  context,  even  though  there  is
absolutely no derogatory documentation to  support  the  statement’s
context.

Applicant’s complete submission is attached at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant’s Total Active Federal Military Service Date  (TAFMSD)
is 29 Jan 85.  He is currently serving  in  the  Regular  Air  Force
(RegAF) in the grade of staff sergeant, effective, and with  a  date
of rank (DOR) of 1 Jan 93.

Applicant’s EPR profile since 1994 follows:

            PERIOD ENDING          OVERALL EVALUATION

              11 Aug 94                    4
              11 Aug 95                    5
              29 Aug 96                    5
              29 Aug 97                    4
              29 Aug 98                    5
            * 29 Aug 99                    2
              29 Aug 00                    4

     *  Contested report.

On 20 Nov 98, the applicant received  an  LOR  for  engaging  in  an
unprofessional  student-instructor  relationship  with   a   student
assigned to the 334th Training Squadron.  The LOR was filed  in  his
Unfavorable Information File (UIF).

A similar appeal was submitted under the provisions of AFI  36-2401,
Correcting Officer and Enlisted Evaluation Reports.  The  Evaluation
Reports Appeal Board (ERAB) denied  the  appeal  as  they  were  not
convinced by the applicant’s documentation.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The Chief,  Inquiries/AFBCMR  Section,  AFPC/DPPPAB,  reviewed  this
application and indicated that, because the  EPR  was  referral,  it
automatically rendered the applicant ineligible  for  promotion  for
the 99E6 cycle (promotions effective Aug 99 – Jul 00) in  accordance
with AFI 36-2502, Airman Promotion Program, Table 1.1, Rule 22.  The
applicant was selected for promotion to technical sergeant on 17 May
99 for this cycle and  received  Promotion  Sequence  Number  5854.0
which would have been effective 1 Feb 00.  However, when he received
the  referral  EPR,  it  automatically  canceled  his  promotion  to
technical sergeant.  In addition, because he did not receive another
EPR closing by 31 Dec 99,  the  Promotion  Eligibility  Cutoff  Date
(PECD) for the next cycle, 00E6, that was rated a “3” or higher  and
not referral, he  was  also  ineligible  for  this  cycle.   If  the
referral EPR is voided, DPPPAB does not  recommend  the  applicant’s
projected promotion for the 99E6 cycle be automatically  reinstated.
Based on  the  reason(s)  for  the  referral  EPR,  the  applicant’s
commander could very well have nonrecommended him for promotion even
if the applicant had not received the referral EPR.  If the referral
EPR were voided, DPPPAB would not  recommend  reinstatement  of  the
projected promotion unless the applicant’s commander approved it.

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

The Acting Chief, Appeals & SSB Branch, AFPC/DPPPAB,  also  reviewed
this application and indicated that  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 Military Equal Opportunity is appropriate,  but  not
provided in this case.



The Acting Chief states  that  the  applicant  was  serving  in  the
position of Instructor, Air Traffic Control, at the time he received
his overall “2” referral EPR.   The  rater’s  final  bullet  comment
(Section V) states, “-Supervisory potential-displayed a severe  lack
of  good  judgement  when  placed  in  positions  of  authority;  --
Reprimanded  for  violating  HQ  AETC  Unprofessional   Relationship
Instruction-degraded unit  morale”.   The  indorser’s  final  bullet
comment    (Section VI)     states,     “-Occasionally     displayed
characteristics of an undisciplined leader; poor decision making and
bad judgement”.  The LOR, dated 20 Nov 98, states the applicant  was
reprimanded  for  his  engagement  “in  an  unprofessional  student-
instructor relationship with…,  a  student  assigned  to  the  334th
Training Squadron.  This behavior is in direct violation of a lawful
instruction, and as such you knowingly violated Article  92  of  the
UCMJ disobeying a direct order, by  failing  to  refrain  from  this
relationship.”  As stated by the ERAB, the UIF and LOR  support  the
EPR ratings.  Further, the  comments  in  the  performance  feedback
worksheets (PFWs) the applicant has provided with  his  appeal  also
support the EPR ratings.  On the 15 Mar 99 PFW,  the  rater  clearly
advised the applicant, “I want to be honest with you about your  EPR
this time.  I can’t justify a 5 with a UIF.  However, I do  want  to
get you a 4.  So get some good ammo for  it.”   Without  benefit  of
comment from the rater, DPPPAB  can only  conclude  the  applicant’s
performance did not improve to the degree where the  rater  believed
he could rate the applicant an overall “4.”

DPPPAB notes a couple of interesting points in this appeal that they
believe the Board should take into consideration.   Aside  from  the
fact the rater counseled the  applicant  regarding  the  substandard
behavior during both feedback sessions, DPPPAB notes  the  rater  on
the contested EPR was also the applicant’s rater during his previous
evaluation period (30 Aug 97 – 29 Aug  98).   Therefore,  the  rater
knew the applicant’s  capabilities  to  perform  in  an  outstanding
manner as evidenced by the overall “5” rating  he  received  on  his
previous 27 Aug 98 EPR with all performance factors in  Section  III
(Evaluation of Performance)  marked  to  the  right.   In  addition,
DPPPAB noted  applicant’s  job  description  on  the  contested  EPR
clearly states, “Maintains good order and discipline.”  As such,  it
is apparent the applicant’s evaluators did not believe he  lived  up
to that expectation thereby resulting in the referral  EPR.   DPPPAB
believes the report  was  accomplished  in  direct  accordance  with
applicable regulations and do not support its removal.

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 his indorser had verbally encouraged him to persue the  removal
of the EPR two weeks after he sent his first appeal to  Headquarters
USAF.  However, the indorser was extremely reluctant to provide this
support in writing when asked to do so, as was his  previous  rater.
He cannot speak for them  as  to  why  they  were/are  reluctant  to
support the appeal in writing, other than they just did not want  to
get involved.  Additionally, evidence provided  includes  the  PFW’s
for 5 Nov 98 and 15 Mar 99,  respectively,  and  the  referral  EPR,
written with six singularly qualifying requirements for  a  referral
EPR, based solely on a single LOR; the final result, a referral EPR,
totally and devastatingly contradicting his PFW’s.

The circumstances behind the LOR can easily be verified  that  there
was no “relationship” as admitted by the student and himself.

For clarification, a UIF is not  a  punishment  tool  but  simply  a
managerial tracking tool that extends the censorship of  access  and
to track any future negative  documentation  on  an  individual  (of
which he did not have).  Also, LOR’s and  LOC’s  are  optional  (not
required) for the commander to place in a UIF.  A UIF does  not  and
should not carry an increased negative weight on an individual,  but
is simply a  tracking/observation  tool.   A  single  LOR  does  not
support or justify a referral EPR on an individual and the impact it
has on one’s career and life.

Applicant states that the “Job Description” in the previous EPR  (an
overall “5”) is exactly the same as the  referral  EPR  (an  overall
“2”) being contested.  In addition, both EPRs state “maintains  good
order and discipline.”  As  such,  it  is  not  apparent  that  “the
evaluators did not believe he lived up to that expectation,  thereby
resulting in the referral EPR.”   Respectfully,  the  interpretation
given  in  paragraph  d.  by  DPPPAB   is   clearly   based   on   a
misunderstanding of the purpose of  Section  II  (Job  Description),
Number  1  (Duty  Title),  of  the  EPR  which  is  a  standard  job
description of an Instructor, Air Traffic Control, not a  conveyance
of  an  evaluators  expectations.   He  humbly  requests  that   the
corrective action being sought be based upon the same merit  as  the
referral EPR should have been based upon, which were his PFW’s,  his
“excellent and outstanding” on/off duty performance, and the absence
of any derogatory information/behavior.

Applicant’s complete response is attached at Exhibit F.

On  7 Nov  00,  applicant’s  commander  provided  a   statement   in
applicant’s behalf which is attached at Exhibit G.

_________________________________________________________________

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.   It
appears that the applicant was involved in an unprofessional student-
instructor relationship during the contested  period  and  based  on
this incident, his performance was  assessed  accordingly.   In  his
comments on the applicant’s PFW, the rater specifically stated  that
he strongly believed instructors and students should not  fraternize
in any way outside of official events.  He  also  stated  that  off-
duty, off-base activities should be avoided at all costs.   In  view
of these statements and the LOR, we believe the  foregoing  supports
the EPR ratings.  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, in view of
the above, and in the absence of evidence to the contrary,  we  find
no compelling basis to recommend granting the relief sought in  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
add to our understanding of the issue(s) 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 21 November 2000, under the provisions  of  Air
Force Instruction 36-2603:

                  Mr. Patrick R. Wheeler, Panel Chair
                  Ms. Patricia D. Vestal, Member
                  Mr. E. David Hoard, Member









The following documentary evidence was considered:

     Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 8 Aug 00, w/atchs.
     Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
     Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPWB, dated 18 Aug 00, w/atch.
     Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPAB, dated 30 Aug 00.
     Exhibit E.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 15 Sep 00.
     Exhibit F.  Letter, Applicant, dated 18 Sep 00.
     Exhibit G.  Letter, 81st Operations Support Flight,
                   dated 7 Nov 00.




                                   PATRICK R. WHEELER
                                   Panel Chair