RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  99-03326
            INDEX CODE:  111.02

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  YES


_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His Enlisted Performance Report (EPR), rendered for the period  13 Dec
95 through 17 May 96, be declared void and removed from his records.
_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The contested report was not based on his  work  performance,  but  on
retaliation.

In support of his request, the applicant submits a personal statement,
copies of his AFI 36-2401 application, the Evaluations Reports  Appeal
Board (ERAB) decision, a statement from his  indorser  and  additional
documents associated with the issues cited in his contentions.   These
documents are appended at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Information extracted from the Personnel Data System (PDS) reveals the
applicant’s Total Active Federal Military Service Date (TAFMSD) as  23
Sep 81.  He is currently serving  on  active  duty  in  the  grade  of
technical sergeant (E-6), with an effective date and date of rank of 1
Feb 93.  The following is a resume of his EPR  ratings  subsequent  to
his promotion to that grade.

            Period Ending    Evaluation

               12 Dec 93     5 - Immediate Promotion
               12 Dec 94     5
               12 Dec 95     5
             * 17 May 96     3 - Consider for Promotion
               17 May 97     5
               17 May 98     5
               17 May 99     5

* Contested report

A similar appeal by the applicant, under Air Force  Instruction  (AFI)
36-2401, was considered and denied by  the  Evaluation  Report  Appeal
Board (ERAB) on 11 Aug 99.
_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The Enlisted Promotion and Military  Testing  Branch,  HQ AFPC/DPPPWB,
stated that the first time the contested report was considered in  the
promotion process was Cycle 97E7 to master sergeant (E-7),  promotions
effective Aug 97 - Jul 98.   Should  the  Board  upgrade  the  overall
rating or void the report in its entirety, providing he  is  otherwise
eligible, the applicant will be  entitled  to  supplemental  promotion
consideration commencing with  Cycle  97E7.   It  is  noted  that  the
applicant will not become a selectee for promotion during  cycle  97E7
or 98E7 if the Board grants his request.  However, he  will  become  a
selectee during the 99E7 promotion  cycle  pending  a  favorable  data
verification check and the  recommendation  of  his  commander.   They
defer to the recommendation of HQ AFPC/DPPPAB (Exhibit C).

The BCMR Appeals  and  SSB  Section,  HQ  AFPC/DPPPAB,  reviewed  this
application and recommended denial.  DPPPAB stated that  the  indorser
does not support voiding the contested report.  The  applicant  failed
to provide any supporting information from the  rating  chain  on  the
contested   EPR;   specifically,   incidents   of    retaliation    or
discrimination.  The numbered Air Force IG dismissed  the  applicant’s
complaint of reprisal since he waited over three  years  to  file  his
complaint.  The applicant has not provided conclusive evidence to show
the contested report was not rendered in good faith by all  evaluators
based on the knowledge available at the time.  Since the  IG  did  not
investigate,  there  is  no  proof  of   substantiated   reprisal   or
retaliation.   A complete copy  of  this  evaluation  is  appended  at
Exhibit D.
_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant reviewed the advisory opinions and indicated that it was
a matter of sheer disappointment that his rater would  be  allowed  to
give him a ”3” EPR after he had received firewall “5” EPRs for the two
previous EPRs from the same rater,  and  the  same  indorser  for  the
previous EPR.  In his career, which spans 18 years, he has never  been
rated lower  than  a  “5”.   Neither  the  board  (ERAB)  nor  the  IG
acknowledged the fact that he had never had  any  disciplinary  action
taken against him or that he was a distinguished graduate of  the  NCO
Academy, which only the top 5% receive.  In support of his request, he
has provided an additional statement of support.  A complete  copy  of
his response is appended at Exhibit F.
_________________________________________________________________
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  supporting  documents
provided by the applicant are sufficient to cause doubt concerning the
fairness and accuracy of the contested report.  In  this  respect,  we
note applicant’s statement concerning  a  conflict  he  had  with  his
rater.  In view of the circumstances involved, it is conceivable  that
the ratings on the report in question could be based on personal  bias
and not on the applicant’s performance and potential.  In addition, we
noted the many statements from subsequent superiors who fully  support
the applicant and consider him to be an outstanding NCO.  Further,  in
looking at the applicant’s overall record, prior and subsequent to the
contested report, we believe a reasonable doubt exists concerning  the
accuracy and fairness  of  the  contested  report.   In  view  of  the
foregoing, we recommend that any doubt be resolved in the  applicant’s
favor and conclude that the contested report should be  declared  void
and removed from his 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   Enlisted
Performance Report, AF Form 910, rendered for the  period  13 December
1995 through 17 May 1996,  be  declared  void  and  removed  from  his
records.

It  is  further  recommended  that   he   be   provided   supplemental
consideration for promotion to the grade of master  sergeant  for  all
appropriate cycles beginning with Cycle 97E7.

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 2 May 2000, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

                  Mr. Terry A. Yonkers, Panel Chair
                  Ms. Leta L. O’Connor, Member
              Mr. Charlie E. Williams, Member

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

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 29 Dec 99, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPPWB, dated 4 Jan 00.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPPAB, dated 22 Jan 00.
   Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 4 Feb 00.
   Exhibit F.  Letter from applicant, dated 2 Feb 00, w/atch.




                                   TERRY A. YONKERS
                                   Panel Chair



AFBCMR 99-03326




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 the Enlisted
Performance Report, AF Form 910, rendered for the period 13 December
1995 through 17 May 1996, be, and hereby is, declared void and removed
from his records.

      It is further directed that he be provided supplemental
consideration for promotion to the grade of master sergeant for all
appropriate cycles beginning with Cycle 97E7.

      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