RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  99-00697
            INDEX CODE:  107, 111.02, 111.05

            COUNSEL:  None

            HEARING DESIRED:  No

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

1.    The Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) rendered  for  the  period
25 May 96 through 24 May 97 be corrected as follows:

            a.   Section III (Evaluation of Performance), Items 3  and
6, upgrade rating one block to the right; and,

            b.   Section VIII (Final Evaluator’s Position),  Change  X
in Block B to Block A to reflect a senior rater indorsement.

2.    His Air Force Achievement  Medal  (AFAM)  with  First  Oak  Leaf
Cluster (1OLC) awarded as an end-of-tour  decoration  for  the  period
14 Aug 95 - 10 Sep 97 be upgraded.

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

During the  reporting  period,  he  received  his  “midterm”  feedback
session just eight days before the close-out of his EPR.  He  did  not
receive an initial feedback or any other feedback session during  that
reporting period.  He believes the reasons for the change in  his  EPR
ratings and why he received the lowest  possible  decoration  once  he
went permanent change of station (PCS) was due to  the  fact  that  he
filed a Fraud, Waste and Abuse complaint.  He feels he should  receive
a decoration suited for a senior noncommissioned officer (SNCO).

Applicant’s complete submission is attached at Exhibit A.

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant’s Total Active Federal Military Service Date (TAFMSD) is
4 Oct 77.  He is currently serving in the Regular  Air  Force  in  the
grade of senior master sergeant, effective, and with a  date  of  rank
(DOR) of 1 Dec 94.

Applicant’s EPR profile since 1988 reflects the following:

            PERIOD ENDING          OVERALL EVALUATION

             23 Oct 88                     9
             24 May 89                     9
             24 May 90                     5 (New rating system)
             24 May 91                     5
             24 May 92                     5
             24 May 93                     5
             24 May 94                     5
             24 May 95                     5
             24 May 96                     5
           * 24 May 97                     5
             24 May 98                     5
             24 May 99                     5

     *  Contested report.

A similar application was  submitted  under  AFI  36-2401,  Correcting
Officer and Enlisted Evaluation Reports.  The Evaluation Report Appeal
Board (ERAB) did not  consider  applicant’s  request  to  upgrade  the
ratings in the report since he did not  have  the  required  evaluator
support; therefore, the ERAB considered only whether or  not  to  void
the report.  However, the ERAB denied the application as the applicant
did not provide the evaluator support required to challenge the EPR.

The applicant was awarded the AFAM, 1OLC, for meritorious service  for
the period 14 Aug 95 to 10 Sep 97.

In response to applicant’s complaint filed with the Inspector  General
(IG) on 30 Jun 97 concerning allegations of Fraud,  Waste,  and  Abuse
(WFA), on 10 Dec 97, the IG found applicant’s allegations of waste  to
be substantiated (see TAB 1).

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The Chief, Recognition  Programs  Branch,  AFPC/DPPPR,  reviewed  this
application and indicated that the AFAM, when awarded  as  an  end-of-
tour decoration, is usually given to lower ranking airmen.   Normally,
the decoration is for a short period and given  for  completion  of  a
specified task or project.  The applicant believes that award of  such
a minor decoration to a SNCO is, in a way, retaliation for his  having
submitted  allegations  to  the  IG  and  having  them  substantiated.
However, the applicant did not provide  any  documentation  (i.e.,  IG
complaint and results) to substantiate his claim that  his  supervisor
and others in his chain of command, retaliated against him because his
FWA complaint by awarding a less-than-desirable end-of-tour decoration
nor did he provide any documentation showing that anyone in his  chain
of command supported his request to upgrade the  AFAM.   Although  not
the normal end-of-tour  decoration  for  a  SNCO,  the  AFAM  was  the
decoration his chain of command felt appropriate for  his  performance
from 14 Aug 95 - 10 Sep  97.   DPPPR  recommends  disapproval  of  the
applicant’s request to upgrade his AFAM, 1OLC.
A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit C.

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  97E9  to  chief  master
sergeant (promotions effective Jan 98 - Dec  98).   Should  the  Board
grant his request, providing he is otherwise eligible,  the  applicant
will be entitled to  supplemental  promotion  consideration  beginning
with cycle 97E9.

Further, the contested AFAM was  first  considered  in  the  promotion
process  during  cycle  98E9  to  chief  master  sergeant  (promotions
effective Jan 99 - Dec 99).  Should the  decoration  be  upgraded,  it
would  not  automatically  entitle  the  applicant   to   supplemental
promotion consideration for any previous cycles as it was not a matter
of  record.   However,  if  the  Board  upgrades  the  decoration   as
requested, it could direct supplemental  promotion  consideration  for
cycle 98E9.

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

The Chief, Appeals  &  SSB  Branch,  AFPC/DPPPA,  also  reviewed  this
application and indicated that the applicant is attempting  to  relate
the ratings on the EPR to the markings  on  the  performance  feedback
worksheet (PFW)  and  this  is  an  inappropriate  comparison  and  is
inconsistent with the Enlisted Evaluation System (EES).   The  purpose
of the feedback session is to give the ratee direction and  to  define
performance expectations for the rating period in question.   Feedback
also provides the ratee the opportunity  to  improve  performance,  if
necessary, before the EPR is written.  The rater who prepares the  PFW
may use the PFW as an aid in preparing the  EPR  and,  if  applicable,
subsequent feedback sessions.  Ratings on the PFW are not an  absolute
indicator of EPR ratings or potential for serving in a  higher  grade.
The PFW acts as a scale on where the ratee stands in relation  to  the
performance expectations of the rater.  A PFW with  all  items  marked
“needs little or no  improvement”  means  the  ratee  is  meeting  the
rater’s standards.  It does not guarantee a firewalled EPR.   Also,  a
ratee who performs current  duties  in  an  exceptional  manner  could
demonstrate only limited potential for the next higher grade.   Or,  a
ratee who still needs to improve in the performance of current  duties
could demonstrate great potential for the next higher grade.  There is
not a direct correlation between the  markings  on  the  PFW  and  the
ratings on an 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.  Evaluators must confirm they  did
not provide counseling or feedback and that this directly resulted  in
an  unfair  evaluation.   The  applicant  must  also  supply  specific
information about the unfair  evaluation  so  the  Board  can  make  a
reasoned judgment on the appeal.

AFI 36-2403, paragraph 2.8, states 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 rater’s  rater  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 an EPR.”

The applicant has not provided clear evidence to prove reprisal was  a
factor.  Instead, he provided a copy  of  the  IG  Summary  Report  of
Inquiry (ROI) that was conducted as a result  of  his  FWA  complaint.
While the IG substantiated waste, there is nothing included with  this
appeal  to  substantiate  his  claim  of  reprisal.    In   order   to
substantiate reprisal occurred, the applicant must  file  a  complaint
with the IG or social actions and include a copy of their summary  and
ROI with his appeal.  He did not mention he filed any sort of official
complaint with the IG  or  social  actions  nor  did  he  provide  any
substantial evidence that reprisal occurred.

Finally, 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     also     for
clarification/explanation.  The burden of proof is  on  the  applicant
and he has failed to provide any information/support from  the  rating
chain on the contested EPR.  It appears the report was accomplished in
direct accordance with applicable regulations.  Based on the  evidence
provided, or lack thereof, DPPPA recommends denial.

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

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Applicant reviewed the Air Force evaluations and stated  that  he  was
opposed to the repainting of the entire fleet  of  aircraft  refueling
vehicles to improve their appearance primarily so the Logistics  Group
could win the petroleum award.  Although he was very vocal  about  his
objections and provided the technical order to support his objections,
leadership chose to proceed with the plan.  The vehicles were painted,
the Logistics Group won the petroleum award  and  eventually  the  FWA
complaint was filed and waste was substantiated.  As someone who lived
through this entire process, he can testify that it was not a pleasant
or comfortable experience.  Almost from the start of the  process,  he
was treated as a turncoat and as someone who was  not  supporting  the
mission.  This treatment was somewhat subdued and low profile  at  the
beginning of the process but became much more open  towards  the  end.
Although he may not be able to “prove” that he  was  reprised  against
for taking a stand against wasting taxpayers’ money, it  is  his  hope
that the Board will review the documents  and  evidence  that  he  has
presented and see the need to make the corrections he has requested.

Applicant’s complete response 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.    Sufficient relevant evidence has been presented  to  demonstrate
the existence of probable error or injustice warranting removal of the
contested report.  Inasmuch as we find no basis upon which  to  change
Sections III and VIII of the contested report  as  requested,  without
rating chain support, based on the evidence provided by the applicant,
in particular, the results of the IG investigation,  substantiates  to
our satisfaction that the contested EPR is not a  fair  assessment  of
the applicant’s performance.  While we do not substitute our judgement
for that of the rating chain, we believe that the  applicant  received
the low ratings on the report in question because he  filed  a  Fraud,
Waste and Abuse complaint.

Furthermore, in recognition of  applicant’s  previous  and  subsequent
superior performance, we believe that sufficient doubt  exists  as  to
the accuracy of the report.  Therefore, to  eliminate  any  doubt  and
possible injustice to the applicant, the Board recommends that the EPR
in question be declared void and removed from his records.

4.    Regarding the award of the AFAM, 1OLC, even  though  it  appears
that applicant’s chain  of  command  felt  this  was  the  appropriate
decoration for his performance from 14 Aug 95 –  10 Sep  97,  the  Air
Force  indicated  that  the  AFAM,  when  awarded  as  an  end-of-tour
decoration, is usually given to lower ranking airmen.  The  Air  Force
also stated that normally, the decoration is for a  short  period  and
given for completion of a specified task or  project.   The  applicant
feels this minor decoration for a senior NCO is  retaliation  for  his
having submitted allegations to the  IG.   We  agree.   Therefore,  we
recommend the AFAM, 1OLC, be removed from  his  records  and  replaced
with an Air Force Commendation Medal (AFCM) which we believe is a more
appropriate decoration for a senior NCO.   Furthermore,  we  recommend
that applicant’s corrected record be provided  supplemental  promotion
consideration to the grade of chief master sergeant  for  cycles  97E9
and 98E9.

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 Senior EPR, AF  Form  911,  rendered  for  the  period
25 May 96 through 24 May 97, be declared void  and  removed  from  his
records.

      b.    The AFAM, 1OLC, rendered for the period 14 Aug 95  through
10 Sep 97, removed from his records.

      c.    He was awarded the AFCM for meritorious  service  for  the
period 14 Aug 95 through 10 Sep 97.

It  is  further  recommended  that   he   be   provided   supplemental
consideration for promotion to the grade of chief master sergeant  for
cycles 97E9 and 98E9.

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 effective and  with  a  date  of  rank  as  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 21 January 2000, under the provisions of AFI  36-
2603:

                  Mr. Benedict A. Kausal, IV, Panel Chair
                  Mr. Patrick R. Wheeler, Member
              Ms. Rita J. Maldonado, Member

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

     Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 8 Mar 99, w/atchs.
     Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
     Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPR, dated 29 Mar 99.
     Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPWB, dated 1 Apr 99.
     Exhibit E.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPA, dated 19 Apr 99.
     Exhibit F.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 3 May 99.
     Exhibit G.  Letter fr applicant, dated 25 May 99.




                                   BENEDICT A. KAUSAL, IV
                                   Panel Chair


INDEX CODE:  107, 111.02, 111.05

AFBCMR 99-00697




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 to, be corrected to show that:

            a.   The Senior Enlisted Performance Report, AF Form  911,
rendered for the period 25 May  1996  through  24 May  1997,  be,  and
hereby is, declared void and removed from his records.

            b.   The Air  Force  Achievement  Medal,  First  Oak  Leaf
Cluster, rendered for the period 14 August 1995  through  10 September
1997, be, and hereby is, declared void and removed from his records.

            c.   He was awarded the Air Force Commendation  Medal  for
meritorious service for the period 14 August 1995 through 10 September
1997.

       It  is  further  directed  that  he  be  provided  supplemental
consideration for promotion to the grade of chief master sergeant  for
cycles 97E9 and 98E9.

      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 effective and with a date of rank as 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