RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  99-02930
            INDEX CODE:  111.02

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO


_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

The Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) rendered for the period  1 Jun
97 through 22 Feb 98 be declared void and removed from his  records;
or, in the alternative, the  contested  report  be  upgraded  to  an
overall “5” rating and all markings in Section  III  (Evaluation  of
Performance) be moved to the right.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The contested report is not  an  accurate  reflection  of  his  duty
performance.

Applicant’s complete submission is attached at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant’s Total Active Federal Military Service Date  (TAFMSD)
is 30 Jan 89.  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 Dec 96.

Applicant’s EPR profile follows:

            PERIOD ENDING          OVERALL EVALUATION

             29 Sep 90                     4
              3 May 91                     4
              3 May 92                     5
              3 May 93                     5
             12 Nov 93                     5
             12 Nov 94                     5
             12 Nov 95                     5
              1 Jul 96                     5
             31 May 97                     5
           * 22 Feb 98                     4
             22 Feb 99                     5
             22 Feb 00                     5

     *  Contested report.

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

Officials at the Air Force Personnel Center  (AFPC)  indicated  that
applicant was selected for  promotion  to  the  grade  of  technical
sergeant for cycle 00E6.

_________________________________________________________________

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  99E6  to  technical
sergeant (promotions effective Aug 99 – Jul 00).  Should  the  Board
void the contested report in its entirety, or  upgrade  the  overall
rating, providing he is otherwise eligible, the  applicant  will  be
entitled to  supplemental  promotion  consideration  beginning  with
cycle 99E6.  The applicant will not  become  a  select  during  this
cycle if the Board grants the request.  The  contested  report  will
not be considered again in the promotion  cycle  until  cycle  00E6.
Promotions for this cycle will be accomplished during the May/Jun 00
time frame.

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

The Chief, BCMR Appeals & SSB Section,  AFPC/DPPPAB,  also  reviewed
this application and indicated 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
for clarification/explanation.  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.     Conspicuously    absent    are    statements    of
support/information from any of  the  evaluators  on  the  contested
report.

DPPPAB states that the applicant provides statements of support from
evaluators who  rated  him  both  before  and  after  the  contested
reporting period.  Some of the statements speculate there might have
been a personality conflict between the applicant and the rater—even
though the applicant has not specifically  stated  that  a  conflict
between he and his rater existed.  In any case, DPPPAB  opines  that
disagreements in the work place are not unusual and, in  themselves,
do not  substantiate  an  evaluator’s  inability  to  be  objective.
Subordinates are required to abide by  their  superior’s  decisions.
If there was a personality conflict between the  applicant  and  the
rater which was of such magnitude the rater could not be  objective,
DPPPAB believes the indorser would have known about it since the EPR
indicates the rater and indorser were assigned to the same location.
 The letters of support and  other  extraneous  documents  that  the
applicant provides are not germane to the report in question.   None
of the testimonials the applicant submits state the evaluators could
not be objective in their assessment of his duty performance.  While
those individuals are entitled to their opinions of the  applicant’s
duty performance and the events occurring around the  time  the  EPR
was rendered, DPPPAB does not believe they were in a better position
to evaluate his duty performance than those  who  were  specifically
assigned that responsibility.

While some of the individuals who  support  the  applicant’s  appeal
efforts contend the contested EPR is inconsistent with previous  and
subsequent performance, 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 or subsequent performance.

Reference applicant’s request  to  change  the  rating  in  lieu  of
voiding the  report,  upgrading  the  EPR  as  requested  cannot  be
accomplished without the concurrence of  the  evaluators  concerned.
Therefore, DPPPAB does not support consideration of this issue.

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
30 Dec 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.     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 report in question  should
be declared void and removed from  his  records  or  upgraded.   His
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 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, 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 28 September 2000, under the provisions of  Air
Force Instruction 36-2603:

                  Mr. Wayne R. Gracie, Panel Chair
                  Mr. Jay Jordan, Member
                  Mr. Laurence Groner, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

     Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 22 Jul 99, w/atchs.
     Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
     Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPAB, dated 29 Nov 99.
     Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPAB, dated 15 Dec 99.
     Exhibit E.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 30 Dec 99.




                                   WAYNE R. GRACIE
                                   Panel Chair