RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  00-02888
            INDEX CODE:  111.05

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

The Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) rendered for the  period  9 June  1997
to 8 June 1998, be declared void.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

His impeccable record that he  established  and  maintained  throughout  the
contested reporting period has been  well  documented.   The  standing  1997
senior  noncommissioned  officer  (SNCO)  of  the  Year,  and  Air  Mobility
Command’s Communications and Information  Professionalism  Award  winner  do
not makeup the attributes in the portfolio of a candidate who is  not  ready
for increased responsibility as a senior master  sergeant.   In  fact  these
coveted awards recognize superior leadership and stellar  performance  as  a
SNCO.  He has earned both of  these  awards  during  the  reporting  period.
However, the MAJCOM award was omitted and replaced by  the  achievements  of
his spouse.  The inclusion of his spouse’s achievement upon  his  evaluation
are  in  direct  violation  of  AFI  36-2403,  3.9.11.   As  rendered,   the
evaluation report is flagrantly inaccurate and incomplete.

In support of his appeal,  the  applicant  provided  a  personal  statement,
letter from xxxxxxx, the contested EPR closing 8 June 1998, and  his  wife’s
Certificate of Volunteer Excellence.

Applicant’s complete submission is attached at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The Applicant is currently serving in the Regular Air Force in the grade  of
master sergeant.

The applicant appealed the contested report under the provisions of AFI  36-
2401 and the appeal was considered and  denied  by  the  Evaluation  Reports
Appeal Board (ERAB).


EPR profile since 1993 reflects the following:

      PERIOD ENDING    EVALUATION OF POTENTIAL

            15 Jul 93        5
            15 Jul 94        5
            15 Jul 95        5
            15 Jan 96        5
            15 Jan 97        5
             8 Jun 97        5
       *  8 Jun 98           5
            10 Feb 99        5
             1 Sep 99        5

* Contested report.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The Chief, Evaluation Programs  Branch,  Directorate  of  Personnel  Program
Management, HQ AFPC/DPPPE, reviewed this application  and  states  that  the
group  commander  validates  the  comments  in  the  EPR  are   indeed   the
applicant’s accomplishments, not the spouse’s.   He  also  contends  he  was
aware of the spouse’s role in the community.  Both received due  recognition
for their efforts in this housing project.   The  commander  stands  by  his
comments  and  claims  the  report  is  valid  and  accurate   as   written.
Therefore, they recommend denial of the applicant’s request.

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

The  Chief,  Inquiries/AFBCMR  Section,  Enlisted  Promotion  and   Military
Testing Branch, AFPC/DPPPWB, also reviewed this application and states  that
the first time the report was considered in the promotion process was  cycle
99E8 to senior master sergeant (promotions  effective  April  1999  -  March
2000).  Should the AFBCMR grant his  request,  providing  the  applicant  is
otherwise  eligible,  he  will  be  entitled   to   supplemental   promotion
consideration beginning with cycle 99E8.

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

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant reviewed  the  Air  Force  evaluations  and  states  that  the
indorser cannot validate any of  the  comments  attributed  to  him  on  the
report in section VII.  Clear documentary evidence  disputes  and  disproves
his claim.  He was never in a position  to  witness  or  secure  first  hand
knowledge, which is evident by his lack of accuracy.  Only the senior  rater
can validate  the  accomplishments,  and  he  does  in  his  testimony.   He
directly supervised every move of the  entire  program.   His  testimony  is
direct,  first  hand  knowledge,  accurate,  clear  and  complete.   He  has
received absolutely no  personal  recognition  for  any  volunteer  work  in
conjunction with the  housing  move.   His  wife  and  her  counterpart  had
deservedly and justifiably received the Certificate of Volunteer  Excellence
from the CSAF for their accomplishments.  The fact remains that  the  report
in his records includes the accomplishments of his wife and  another.   This
is in direct violation of AFI 36-2403.  Corrective measures  must  be  taken
to maintain  the  integrity  of  the  enlisted  evaluation  system  and  his
personal records.

Applicant’s complete response, with attachments, is attached at Exhibit E.

_________________________________________________________________

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.  After  reviewing  the  supporting
documentation submitted by the applicant, we believe  the  contested  report
is not an accurate assessment of applicant's performance during  the  period
in question.  We note the letter from his  former  senior  rater  indicating
that he was not consulted about the error until after the EPR was  submitted
for the  record.   Had  he  been  consulted,  he  would  have  taken  proper
corrective  measures  to  prevent  the   submission   of   this   inaccurate
evaluation.   He  further  states  that  the  indorser’s  comments  on   the
contested report reflects the  volunteer  achievements  of  the  applicant’s
wife, one of his two volunteer special assistants.  These two statements  on
the applicant’s EPR are in direct violation of AFI 36-2403.  In view of  the
above findings, we believe that the  contested  report  should  be  declared
void and removed from applicant’s records.  In addition, we  recommend  that
his corrected record be provided supplemental  promotion  consideration  for
the 99E8 cycle.

_________________________________________________________________

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 911, rendered for the period 9  June  1997  through  8  June  1998,  be
declared void and removed from his records.

It  is  further  recommended  that  applicant   be   provided   supplemental
consideration  for  promotion  to  the  grade  of  senior  master   sergeant
beginning with cycle 99E8.

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  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 22 February 2000, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

            Mr. Gregory H. Petkoff, Panel Chair
            Mr. Jackson A. Hauslein, Member
            Ms. Barbara J. White-Olson, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 24 Oct 00, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPE, dated 13 Nov 00, w/atchs.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPWB, dated 15 Nov 00.
   Exhibit E.. Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 8 Dec 00.
   Exhibit F.  Letter, Applicant, dated 10 Jan 01, w/atchs.




                 GREGORY H. PETKOFF
                 Panel Chair
AFBCMR 00-02888





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 The Enlisted Performance  Report,  AF
Form 911, rendered for the period 9 June 1997 through 8 June 1998,  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 senior master sergeant  beginning  with  cycle
99E8.

      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  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