RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:            DOCKET NUMBER:  00-03233
                 INDEX CODE:  111.00, 111.02

                 COUNSEL:  NONE

                 HEARING DESIRED:  NO


_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

The Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) rendered for the  period  1 Jun
98 through 31 May 99 be declared void and removed from her records.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The contested report was based on her supervisor’s personal  feelings
towards  her  and  not   her   outstanding   duty   performance   and
professionalism.  The rater used a one-sided, unsigned,  e-mail  Memo
for Record  that  she  was  not  aware  of  as  the  sole  source  of
documentation to give her a referral EPR.  The lack of feedbacks  and
the timing of the one feedback (six  weeks  before  closeout  of  the
contested EPR) she did receive put  her  in  an  unfair  and  unequal
situation.

Applicant’s complete submission is attached at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant’s Total Active Federal Military Service  Date  (TAFMSD)
is 23 Sep 92.  She 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 Aug 97.

Applicant’s EPR profile follows:

            PERIOD ENDING          OVERALL EVALUATION

             31 May 94                     5
             31 May 95                     5
             31 May 96                     5
             31 May 97                     5
             31 May 98                     4
           * 31 May 99                     2 (Referral Rpt)
             16 Apr 00                     4

     * Contested EPR.

On 19 Oct 98, applicant received a  Letter  of  Reprimand  (LOR)  for
making a false official  statement,  to  wit:   she  told  the  first
sergeant that a second lieutenant took her aside during  a  temporary
duty (TDY) and told her “We need to talk sister to sister  because  I
don’t trust these white mother  fuckers  in  charge.”   A  31 Aug  00
statement from the indorser on the contested  report  indicates  that
after further investigation, the commander removed the LOR  from  the
applicant’s record.

Applicant submitted a similar appeal to the Evaluation Reports Appeal
Board (ERAB) four times under AFI 36-2401.  Her first  submission  to
the ERAB was denied.  The  ERAB  was  not  convinced  by  applicant’s
documentation.  Her second submission was returned without action due
to her application being incomplete.  The third submission  was  also
returned without action due to an incomplete application.  The fourth
submission was returned without action due to applicant not complying
with the ERAB instructions in a previous memorandum.

On 30 Sep 99,  applicant’s  supervisor  did  not  recommend  her  for
reenlistment due to the referral EPR.  On 1 Oct 99, the commander did
not select applicant for reenlistment due to the referral EPR.

The  Personnel  Data  System  (PDS)  reflects  that   the   applicant
reenlisted on 18 Oct 99 for a period of four years.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The  Chief,  Inquiries/AFBCMR  Section,  AFPC/DPPPWB,  reviewed  this
application and indicated that the  first  cycle  the  contested  EPR
would normally have been considered was the  00E6  cycles.   However,
the fact  that  the  EPR  was  a  referral,  rendered  the  applicant
ineligible for consideration for promotion in accordance with AFI 36-
2502, Airman Promotion Program, Table 1.1, Rule 22.  Should the Board
void the report in its entirety or upgrade the overall rating to a  3
or higher and void  the  portion  of  the  report  that  makes  it  a
referral, providing she is otherwise eligible, the applicant will  be
entitled to supplemental promotion consideration beginning with cycle
00E6.

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



The Chief, Performance Evaluation Section, AFPC/DPPPE, also  reviewed
this application and indicated, in part, that the applicant  has  not
provided specific instances  based  on  firsthand  observation  which
substantiate the relationship between her and her rater was  strained
to the  point  that  an  objective  evaluation  was  impossible.   If
personal feelings were as evident as the applicant  perceived,  DPPPE
believes the indorser would have noted this and  made  any  necessary
adjustment(s) to the applicant’s EPR at that time.   The  letters  of
support the applicant provides are  not  germane  to  the  report  in
question.  None of the testimonials she submits state the  evaluators
rated her inaccurately nor would DPPPE be convinced of their  ability
to more accurately assess her performance considering they  were  not
the individuals charged with performing this responsibility.

DPPPE is not convinced by the applicant’s evidence that  her  request
to void the contested report should  be  granted.   The  EPR  can  be
administratively corrected and it will be a valid EPR.   Because  the
commander removed the LOR, any reference to it needs to  be  removed.
Section VI (Indorser’s Comments), bullet two and the two  sub-bullets
should be deleted along with the indorser’s markdowns in Section  III
(Evaluation of Performance) and the  indorser’s  rating  upgraded  in
Section IV (Promotion Recommendation).  No corrections should be made
for the rater’s comments since there is no support  from  the  rater.
The rater’s comments did not pertain to the LOR.

DPPPE recommends denial on voiding the EPR  but  recommends  deleting
bullets/markdowns  pertaining  to  the  LOR  or  request  replacement
comments from the indorser.  They recommend  changing  the  nonconcur
block to concur and upgrading overall promotion recommendation  to  a
“3” in Section IV since the indorser previously supported this action
on an earlier ERAB submission.  Also, they recommend removing the LOR
that appears to  have  been  erroneously  attached  to  the  rebuttal
package.

A complete  copy  of  the  their  evaluation,  with  attachments,  is
attached at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Applicant reviewed the Air Force evaluations and provided a five-page
letter responding to the advisory opinions.   She  states,  in  part,
that it is not normal for an alleged, isolated incident, annotated in
the form of a Memo for Record that was purposely hidden from  her  to
be used to cause a referral EPR and denial of reenlistment.  She asks
the Board to see that she was rated unfairly and the only way to  fix
her EPR is to have it removed from her records.  Her career has  been
put on hold through no fault of her own.

Applicant’s complete  response,  with  attachments,  is  attached  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  warranting  removal  of
the report in  question.   Our  decision  hinged  on  the  statements
provided by the indorser  of  the  contested  report.   The  indorser
states that the rater made a false  statement  by  stating  that  the
midterm feedback was not conducted because  the  applicant  was  TDY,
when it was the rater who was TDY with the applicant.  He also states
that an unsigned e-mail Memo for Record that the  applicant  was  not
aware of until the rater gave her the referral  letter  was  used  to
initiate the referral EPR.  The indorser  states  that  the  EPR  was
apparently  based  on  the  rater’s  personal  feelings  toward   the
applicant and not duty performance.  He  also  states  that  he  (the
indorser) depended on his  Senior  Noncommissioned  Officer’s  (NCOs)
professional judgments to help him make an informed decision  on  the
EPR endorsement section and the Senior NCO failed to do so.  In  view
of these statements and in recognition of  applicant’s  previous  and
subsequent superior performance, we  believe  that  sufficient  doubt
exists as to the accuracy of the  contested  report.   Therefore,  to
eliminate any doubt and  possible  injustice  to  the  applicant,  we
recommend that the EPR in question be declared void and removed  from
her records.  We further recommend  that  the  applicant’s  corrected
record be provided supplemental promotion consideration to the  grade
of technical sergeant for  all  appropriate  cycles  commencing  with
cycle 00E6.

4.    We note the Chief, Performance Evaluation Section,  recommended
deleting  bullets/markdowns  pertaining  to  the   LOR   or   request
replacement comments from the indorser;  change  nonconcur  block  to
concur; upgrade overall promotion recommendation to a  3  in  Section
IV; and, remove  the  LOR  that  appears  to  have  been  erroneously
attached to the rebuttal package.  However, in our  opinion,  and  in
order to remove any possibility of an injustice to the applicant,  we
believe that the report  in  question  should  be  removed  from  her
records in its entirety.

_________________________________________________________________






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 1 Jun 98 through 31 May 99, be  declared
void and removed from her records.

It  is  further  recommended  that  she  be   provided   supplemental
consideration for promotion to the grade of  technical  sergeant  for
all appropriate cycles commencing with cycle 00E6.

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 19 April 2001, under the provisions of  AFI  36-
2603:

                  Mr. Teddy L. Houston, Panel Chair
                  Mr. Laurence M. Groner, Member
              Ms. Barbara J. White-Olson, Member

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

     Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 29 Nov 00, w/atchs.
     Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
     Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPWB, dated 20 Dec 00, w/atch.
     Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPE, dated 5 Jan 01, w/atchs.
     Exhibit E.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 16 Feb 01.
     Exhibit F.  Letter fr applicant, undated, w/atchs.




                                   TEDDY L. HOUSTON
                                   Panel Chair

INDEX CODE:  111.00, 111.02

AFBCMR 00-03233




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 910, rendered for the period 1 June  1998
through 31 May 1999, 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  technical  sergeant  for
all appropriate cycles commencing with cycle 00E6.

      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