RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  00-03348
                             INDEX CODE: 111.00

                             COUNSEL:  NONE

                             HEARING DESIRED:  NO


_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

The Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) rendered for the period 23 April  1997
through 30 January 1998 be removed and declared void.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The contested report is an inaccurate assessment of his  performance  during
the contested period.

He was disqualified from  the  loadmaster  career  field  for  inability  to
maintain standards.  He completed training in September 1997 and received  a
qualified rating for an upgrade evaluation.  He was involved in  a  Class  C
mishap in October 1997.  After the  mishap  he  was  downgraded  to  student
status and removed from the career field in December 1997 for  inability  to
progress in training.  He was praised  for  job  knowledge,  but  lacked  in
areas of situational awareness and safety.  After he was  disqualified  from
the “1A2X1” Air Force Specialty Code (AFSC) not through lack of  effort  but
lack of ability, he was placed into AFSC  “9A000”  airman  removed  not  for
cause.  If he had been at fault he would have  been  placed  into  reporting
identifier “9A100.”  Due to being removed from the “1A2X1” career  field,  a
decision had to be made whether to separate  or  allow  him  to  crosstrain.
The contested EPR was written while that decision was being  made.   He  was
allowed to crosstrain but it was possible this EPR was written  to  make  it
easier to warrant separation.  He states that a letter he received from  his
first sergeant and squadron superintendent indicates  that  the  rating  was
unjust and it was given  not  because  it  was  deserved  but  to  ease  the
separation process if it was decided he was not to crosstrain.   During  the
period in question the performance feedback provided  did  not  address  any
substandard performance, nor did it exhibit any  concern  that  he  was  not
progressing in training.  He was unaware that he could ask  for  performance
feedback.  He never gave his supervisor any reason to dislike  him,  however
he consistently rated him unfairly and without due cause.

In support of the appeal, applicant submits a  copy  of  the  contested  EPR
closing 30 January 1998, and other documentation.

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
senior airman.

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

EPR profile since 1997 reflects the following:

      PERIOD ENDING    EVALUATION OF POTENTIAL

            22 Apr 97        4
      *     30 Jan 98        1
            30 May 98        4
            30 Sep 98        5
            10 Jul 99        5
            14 May 00        5

*  Contested report

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The  Chief,  Inquiries/AFBCMR  Section,  Enlisted  Promotion  and   Military
Testing Branch, AFPC/DPPPWB,  reviewed  this  application  and  states  that
based on the applicant’s date of rank for senior airman, the first time  the
report was considered in the promotion process was for cycle 99E5  to  staff
sergeant (promotion effective September 1999 -  August  2000).   Should  the
AFBCMR void the report as requested providing he is otherwise eligible,  the
applicant  will  be  entitled  to   supplemental   promotion   consideration
beginning with cycle 99E5.  The applicant will become a select  during  this
cycle pending a favorable data verification and the  recommendation  of  the
commander.  The applicant became a select  during  the  00E6  cycle  with  a
Promotion  Sequence  Number  (PSN)  of  12528.0.   This  PSN  has  not  been
incremented as of this date.

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

The Chief, Performance Evaluation Section, Directorate of Personnel  Program
Management, HQ AFPC/DPPPE, also reviewed this application  and  states  that
the applicant has not provided any supporting documentation to  justify  any
errors on his 30 January 1998 EPR.  He has  merely  raised  suspicion  of  a
conflict between himself and his  immediate  rating  chain  with  supporting
letters from his first sergeant and the squadron superintendent.   Suspicion
is not proof.  The member did not obtain supporting documentation  from  the
squadron commander who concurred with  the  EPR  in  question.   The  entire
rating  chain  (rater,  rater’s  rater,  and  squadron  commander)  was   in
agreement that  the  EPR  in  question  was  an  accurate  portrait  of  his
performance.  There is no documentation from the rating chain to  contradict
or admit error concerning this EPR.  In fact, the  applicant  has  confirmed
that all negative conduct/behavior contained within this report did in  fact
happen (nonpayment on credit  card  accounts,  substandard  compliance  with
dormitory standards, and failures during duty performance evaluations).

The rating chain  evaluated  the  applicant  and  chose  to  articulate  his
substandard duty performance on his evaluation.  This is completely in  line
with policy and procedures contained within the Enlisted Evaluation System.

The applicant has highlighted  his  concern  surrounding  the  existence  of
feedback  during  this  rating  period.   There  is  no   solid   supporting
documentation  supporting  this  allegation.   Furthermore,  even   if   the
feedback was in fact nonexistent, that alone is not sufficient to  challenge
the accuracy or justness of  a  report.   Applicant  has  not  provided  any
documentation  to  prove  the  invalidity  of  his  30  January  1998   EPR.
Disapprove  applicant’s  request  to  void  EPR  closing  30  January  1998.
Applicant’s request is without merit.

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

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS:

The applicant reviewed  the  evaluations  and  states  that  the  evaluation
completely disregards the  beliefs  of  two  highly  respected  senior  non-
commissioned officers (SNCOs).  It also shows  little  regard  for  justice.
It requests a definitive  proof  of  bias.   He  believes  the  request  for
definitive proof of bias without getting actual admission from the rater  is
difficult, if not impossible to obtain.  It also assumes  a  normal  working
relationship, which he did not have with his rater simply due to the  duties
involved as a loadmaster.  He states that removing  the  EPR  would  be  the
right thing to do both morally and for the  good  of  the  Air  Force.   The
contested EPR is obviously not fair or just.   He  has  not  encountered  an
airman who has been allowed to remain  in  the  service  after  receiving  a
rating of “1.”  He has encountered airmen who have received ratings  of  “4”
even after receiving an Article 15 punishment, even for offenses as  bad  as
driving under the influence (DUI)  or  assault.   The  Air  Force  will  not
benefit from the contested EPR remaining in his record.   Although  he  will
overcome the effects of the EPR  should  it  remain,  promotion  eligibility
will be difficult.

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.   After  reviewing  the  material
submitted, we are persuaded that the contested report  is  not  an  accurate
assessment of his performance during the  period  in  question.   While  the
applicant has not provided statements from the rating chain,  based  on  the
evidence of record, it does  appear  that  a  personality  conflict  existed
between him and individuals in his  rating  chain.   In  our  opinion,  this
conflict adversely influenced the members of his rating chain’s  objectivity
in  assessing  applicant's  performance.   In  this  respect,  we  note  the
statements from his first sergeant and squadron  superintendent  during  the
period in question who indicated that the EPR was a  result  of  personality
conflicts  between  the  applicant  and  his  chain   of   command.    These
individuals state the EPR was written on the  pretense  that  the  applicant
was being separated from active duty and although  he  was  eliminated  from
training in the loadmaster career  field  he  did  not  deserve  an  overall
rating of “1.”  This was an injustice to the applicant.   The  Board  is  of
the opinion that the rating represented an inconsistency in the  applicant’s
performance when compared to his performance both prior  and  subsequent  to
the period under review.   In  view  of  the  foregoing,  we  recommend  the
contested report be declared void and removed from his  records  and  he  be
provided supplemental promotion consideration.

_________________________________________________________________

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 23 April 1997 through  30  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  staff  sergeant  for  all
appropriate cycles beginning with cycle 99E5.


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 applicant was promoted to the  higher  grade
on the date of rank established  by  the  supplemental  promotion  and  that
applicant 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 8 Dec 00, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPWB, dated 2 Jan 01.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPE, dated 16 Jan 01.
   Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 9 Feb 01.
   Exhibit F.  Letter, Applicant, undated, w/atch.




                 TEDDY L. HOUSTON
                 Panel Chair

AFBCMR 00-03348




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 23 April 1997 through 30 January 1998,
be, and hereby is, declared void and removed from his records.

      It is further directed that applicant be provided supplemental
consideration for promotion to the grade of staff sergeant for all
appropriate cycles beginning with cycle 99E5.

      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 applicant was promoted to the higher grade
on the date of rank established by the supplemental promotion and that
applicant is entitled to all pay, allowances, and benefits of such grade as
of that date.




            JOE G. LINEBERGER
            Director
            Air Force Review Boards Agency