RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  99-01006
            INDEX CODE:  111.02

            COUNSEL:  None

            HEARING DESIRED:  No

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

The Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) rendered  for  the  period  28 Apr  95
through 29 Nov 95 be declared void and removed from her records.

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

Her  supervisor  had  a  serious  lack  of  knowledge  of  her  duties   and
responsibilities;  training  was  not  provided  or  documented;  and,   her
supervisor used an isolated incident against her.

In support of her appeal,  the  applicant  provides  a  statement  from  the
indorser of the contested  report,  supporting  statements,  copies  of  her
EPRs, copies of  her  Performance  Feedback  Worksheets  (PFWs),  and  other
documentation relating to her appeal.

Applicant’s complete submission is attached at Exhibit A.

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant’s Total Active  Federal  Military  Service  Date  (TAFMSD)  is
28 Aug 92.  She is currently serving in the Regular Air Force in  the  grade
of staff sergeant, effective, and with a date of rank (DOR) 1 Nov 99.

Applicant’s EPR profile follows:

            PERIOD ENDING          OVERALL EVALUATION

             27 Apr 94                     5
             27 Apr 95                     5
           * 29 Nov 95                     4
             29 Nov 96                     5
             29 Nov 97                     5
              2 Dec 98                     5

     *  Contested report.

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The Chief, Inquiries/AFBCMR Section, AFPC/DPPPAB, reviewed this  application
and indicated  that  the  first  time  the  report  was  considered  in  the
promotion process was cycle 96E5 to  staff  sergeant  (promotions  effective
Sep 96 - Aug 97).  Should  the  Board  void  the  contested  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 96E5.  She will  not  become  a  selectee
during cycles 96E5 or 97E5 if the Board grants the request but would  become
a selectee for the 98E5 cycle pending a favorable data verification and  the
recommendation of the commander.

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

The Chief, Appeals & SSB Branch, AFPC/DPPPA, also reviewed this  application
and indicated that  while  the  applicant  provided  a  statement  from  the
indorser of the report in question who  stated  the  feedback  conducted  on
15 Nov 95 was prepared inappropriately,  DPPPA  disagrees.   They  note  the
rater marked the applicant down  in  Customs  and  Courtesies  (Item 3)  and
Respect for Authority (Item 4).  On each item,  a  written  comment  to  the
right states, “comments on back.”  On the reverse side, the  rater  explains
the use and importance of the chain of command.  DPPPA notes  the  applicant
provided several copies of performance feedbacks given  since  she  came  on
active duty.  In addition to the two  performance  feedbacks  noted  on  the
contested EPR, DPPPA notes the rater also completed a PFW on  19 May  93  in
which he complimented her on her initiatives to keep up with  her  training.
Yet, on nearly each PFW provided by the applicant, she  has  been  counseled
on numerous occasions on her need to improve her communication skills.

The applicant claims she was not trained adequately to perform  her  primary
duties and provided copies of On-the-Job Training  (OJT)  records  to  prove
her contention.  Since failing to provide training and failing  to  document
training are different problems, OJT records, reviews of  OJT  records,  and
OJT inspection reports do not prove training was not  conducted,  only  that
training was not documented.  While  the  indorser  alludes  to  a  lack  of
training, no specific information was provided from rating  chain  officials
who can give specific information about the training problem and its  impact
on the EPR.

Reference the applicant’s contention the  rater  had  no  knowledge  of  the
“total person,” DPPPA contends that Air Force policy charges a rater to  get
meaningful information from the ratee and as many sources as  possible.   It
is the rater’s ultimate responsibility to  determine  which  accomplishments
are included on the EPR and whether or  not  it  is  necessary  for  him  to
gather additional information from other  sources  in  order  to  render  an
accurate assessment of the individual.  The rater  obviously  considered  he
had sufficient knowledge of  the  applicant’s  performance  and  rendered  a
valid assessment of her performance.  The  applicant  fails  to  realize  or
understand that, by virtue of human nature, an individual’s  self-assessment
of performance is often somewhat  “glorified”  compared  to  an  evaluator’s
perspective because it is based on perceptions of self.  Her report  is  not
inaccurate or unfair simply because she believes it is.  The  indorser  does
not specifically state he supports removal of the EPR in question.

DPPPA states that the applicant is attempting to relate the ratings  on  the
EPR to the markings on the PFW which 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.   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 since there is a  possibility  performance  could
degrade between the last feedback and the rendering of the  subsequent  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  the
EPR.

The applicant contends the  feedbacks  indicated  she  had  a  problem  with
“respect for authority,” yet the contested EPR was marked  “exemplifies  the
standards of conduct” and that she  believes  the  rater  used  an  isolated
incident against her.  Item 4, “How is  Ratee’s  Conduct  On/Off  Duty?”  is
marked “exemplifies the standards of  conduct.”   Item  3,  “How  Well  Does
Ratee Comply with Standards? (Consider  dress  and  appearance,  weight  and
fitness, customs, and courtesies),”  is  marked  down  one  block  from  the
right.   As  for  the  “isolated  incident,”  the  applicant   provides   no
substantiation that this occurred and the burden of proof is on her.

While  the  applicant  contends  the  contested  EPR  is  inconsistent  with
previous EPRs, 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.

DPPPA further states that 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 applicant has failed to provide any information/support from  the  rater
on  the  contested  EPR.   In  the  absence  of  information  from  all  the
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.  DPPPA  recommends  the  application  be  time-
barred from consideration; however, if the Board considers  on  merit,  then
they recommend denial.

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


APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to  applicant  on  14 Jun
99 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.    Sufficient relevant evidence has been  presented  to  demonstrate  the
existence  of  probable  error  or  injustice  warranting  removal  of   the
contested report.  After thoroughly reviewing the  evidence  of  record,  we
are persuaded that the contested report is not  an  accurate  reflection  of
applicant’s performance  during  the  time  period  in  question.   In  this
respect, we note the supporting statements provided by  her  co-workers  who
indicate that there was a  lack  of  training  and  direct  supervision  and
observation by applicant’s supervisor due to him  physically  working  in  a
different location.  We also note the  incident  that  occurred  during  the
time of the contested report when the applicant requested  a  day  off  from
her supervisor and when he denied her request, she asked if she could go  to
his supervisor  and  her  request  was  granted.   We  believe  that  it  is
possible, indeed probable, that the rater based his  rating  on  his  belief
that applicant misused the chain of command.  Therefore,  we  are  persuaded
that the contested report was written based solely on an isolated  incident.
 In view of the foregoing, and in recognition of  applicant’s  previous  and
subsequent superior performance, we believe that sufficient doubt exists  as
to the accuracy of the report and, therefore, to  eliminate  any  doubt  and
possible injustice to the applicant, we recommend the  EPR  in  question  be
declared void and removed from her records.

THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT:

The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air  Force  relating
to APPLICANT, be corrected to show that the EPR, AF Form 910,  rendered  for
the period 28 Apr 95 through 29 Nov 95 be declared  void  and  removed  from
her records.

It is further recommended that she be  provided  supplemental  consideration
for promotion to the grade of staff  sergeant  for  all  appropriate  cycles
commencing with cycle 96E5.

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  she  was  promoted  to  the  higher  grade
effective and with a  date  of  rank  as  established  by  the  supplemental
promotion and that she 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 10 February 2000, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

                  Mr. Joseph G. Diamond, Panel Chair
                  Mr. Gregory H. Petkoff, Member
              Mr. Jay Jordan, Member

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

     Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 10 Mar 99, w/atchs.
     Exhibit B.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPWB, dated 23 Apr 99.
     Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPA, dated 28 May 99.
     Exhibit D.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 14 Jun 99.




                                   JOSEPH G. DIAMOND
                                   Panel Chair


INDEX CODE:  111.02

AFBCMR 99-01006




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  APPLICANT  be  corrected  to  show  that  Enlisted  Performance
Report,  AF  Form  910,  rendered  for  the  period  28 April  1995  through
29 November 1995 be, and hereby is,  declared  void  and  removed  from  her
records.

       It  is  further  directed   that   she   be   provided   supplemental
consideration  for  promotion  to  the  grade  of  staff  sergeant  for  all
appropriate cycles commencing with cycle 96E5.

      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  she  was  promoted  to  the  higher  grade
effective and with a  date  of  rank  as  established  by  the  supplemental
promotion and that she is entitled to all pay, allowances, and  benefits  of
such grade as of that date.





                                                         JOE G. LINEBERGER

                                                         Director
                                                          Air  Force  Review
Boards Agency