RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  99-03165
            INDEX NUMBER:  111.02

      XXXXXXXXXXXXX    COUNSEL:  No

      XXXXXXXXXXXX     HEARING DESIRED:  No

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

The overall ratings of “4” he received on the Enlisted  Performance
Reports (EPRs) rendered  for  the  periods  27  June  1991  through
26 June 1992 and 27 June 1992 through 26 June 1993  be  changed  to
overall ratings of “5.”

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

During the period of the reports in question, AETC had a policy  of
giving new instructors ratings of “4.”

A letter of recommendation for instructor duty from  a  Colonel  on
another individual talks about a policy  of  only  giving  “4s”  on
initial EPRs and supports his  assertion  that  his  MAJCOM  had  a
policy that no new instructor could get a “5” EPR.

The applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.

___________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The Personnel Data System  (PDS)  reflects  the  applicant’s  Total
Active Federal Military Service Date (TAFMSD) as 10 June 1981.  The
applicant is presently serving on  active  duty  in  the  grade  of
technical sergeant (TSgt) (E-6) and was selected for  promotion  to
that grade during the 98E6 cycle, with a date of rank and effective
date of 1 September 1998.

The applicant’s EPR profile as reflected in the PDS follows:

        PERIOD CLOSING            OVERALL EVALUATION


          26 Jun 90                     5

          26 Jun 91                     5
         #26 Jun 92                     4
         #26 Jun 93                     4
          26 Jun 94                     5
          30 Apr 95                     5
          30 Apr 96                     4
          30 Apr 97                     5
          30 Apr 98                     5
          30 Apr 99                     5
          30 Dec 99                     5

#  Reports applicant requests be upgraded.

The  applicant  appealed  the  two  reports  in  question  to   the
Evaluation Reports Appeal Board (ERAB) in Dec 98.  The ERAB  denied
his appeal on 26 Jan 99.

___________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS:

The   Inquiries/AFBCMR   Section,   AFPC/DPPPWB,   evaluated   this
application and provided the following  information  regarding  the
impact of the two EPRs on the applicant’s promotion consideration:

The first time the two  EPRs  impacted  the  applicant’s  promotion
consideration was cycle 94A6  to  TSgt  (promotions  effective  Aug
93–Jul 94).  If the two reports are voided in  their  entirety,  or
upgraded to a rating of “5,” provided the  applicant  is  otherwise
eligible,  he  will   be   entitled   to   supplemental   promotion
consideration beginning with cycle 94A6.  The  applicant  will  not
become a selectee during the 94A6 or 95A6 cycles, but would  become
a selectee for the 95E6 cycle pending a favorable data verification
and the recommendation of the commander.

AFPC/DPPPWB  deferred  to  the  recommendation  of  the  Promotion,
Evaluation, and Recognition Division.

The complete evaluation is at Exhibit C.

The Evaluation Programs Branch,  AFPC/DPPPE,  also  evaluated  this
application.  They recommended denial of the applicant’s request.

AFPC/DPPPE references the denial of the applicant’s earlier  appeal
by the ERAB and states that they accept the findings  contained  in
their memorandum, dated 26 Jan 99, provided by the applicant.

Additionally, they point out that although the  applicant  provided
statements  of  support  from  two  of  his  raters  and  commander
reiterating his claim that the MAJCOM had  a  policy  that  no  new
instructors would get a “5” EPR, the applicant did not  submit  any
proof in support of this claim.  They also indicate that the raters
and the commander should have been aware of the messages put out by
the Chief of Staff on the Enlisted Evaluation System (EES).

In a letter, dated 14 Dec 89, the Chief of Staff talked  about  the
fundamental differences of the EPR versus  the  Airman  Performance
Rating (APR).  In  a  message  sent  out  on  15  Mar  90,  it  was
reiterated that the EES was not a quota system.  In another message
sent  out  24  Oct  91,  EES  Revalidation,  it  was  stated   that
“Expectations” were a guide but  everyone  should  be  getting  the
rating they earned and deserved.

Finally, the applicant fails to prove that his MAJCOM had a  policy
that new instructors would only get “4” EPRs

The complete evaluation is at Exhibit D.

AFPC/DPPP reviewed this application and accepted the evaluation and
recommendation of AFPC/DPPPE.

Their complete response is at Exhibit E.

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS:

The  applicant  again  referred  to  the  copy  of  the  Letter  of
Recommendation he provided in his initial package from a Colonel as
proof that his MAJCOM had a policy that no new instructor could get
a “5” EPR.  He also reiterated that the letters of support from his
raters and commander also reinforce this.

The applicant’s response is 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.   The  Board  was
persuaded by the support provided to the applicant from his  rating
chain as well as from his former commander that a  perceived  quota
influenced the overall  ratings  on  the  two  contested  EPRS.  We
therefore recommend that the  contested  reports  be  corrected  as
indicated below and that the  applicant  be  provided  supplemental
promotion consideration for all  cycles  for  which  the  contested
reports were a matter of record.

___________________________________________________________________

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 rater and indorser’s recommendations in  Section  IV,
Promotion Recommendation, on the Enlisted  Performance  Report  (AB
thru TSgt), AF Form 910,  rendered  for  the  period  27  Jun  1991
through 26 June 1992, be, changed from “4” to “5.”

      b.  The rater and indorser’s recommendations in  Section  IV,
Promotion Recommendation, on the Enlisted  Performance  Report  (AB
through TSgt), AF Form 910, rendered for the period  27  June  1992
through 26 June 1993, be changed from “4” to “5.”

It  is  further  recommended  that  he  be  provided   supplemental
consideration for promotion to the grade of technical sergeant   (E-
6) beginning with cycle 94A6.

If selected for promotion to  technical  sergeant  by  supplemental
consideration,  he  be   provided   any   additional   supplemental
consideration required as a result of that selection.

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  qualifications  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 on the date of rank 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 31 May 2000, under the provisions of AFI    36-
2603:

      Mr. David W. Mulgrew, Panel Chair
      Mr. Grover L. Dunn, Member
      Mr. William Edwards, Member

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

     Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, 24 Nov 99, w/atchs.
     Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
     Exhibit C.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPPPWB, dated 2 Feb 00.
     Exhibit D.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPPPE, dated 9 Mar 00, w/atchs.
     Exhibit E.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPPP, dated 17 Mar 00.
     Exhibit F.  Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated, 31 Mar 00.
     Exhibit E.  Letter, Applicant, 4 Apr 00.




                                   DAVID W. MULGREW
                                   Panel Chair




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:.

          a.  The rater and indorser’s recommendations in Section
IV, Promotion Recommendation, on the Enlisted Performance Report
(AB thru TSgt), AF Form 910, rendered for the period 27 June 1991
through 26 June 1992, be, and hereby are, changed from “4” to “5.”

          b.  The rater and indorser’s recommendations in Section
IV, Promotion Recommendation, on the Enlisted Performance Report
(AB through TSgt), AF Form 910, rendered for the period       27
June 1992 through 26 June 1993, be and hereby are, changed from “4”
to “5.”

      It is further directed that he be provided supplemental
consideration for promotion to the grade of technical sergeant (E-
6) beginning with cycle 94A6.

      If selected for promotion to technical sergeant by
supplemental consideration, he be provided any additional
supplemental consideration required as a result of that selection.

      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 qualifications 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 on the date of rank 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