RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  01-00153
            INDEX CODE:  111.02

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO


__________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

The Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) rendered for the period 29 Oct
96 through 28 Oct 97 be declared void and removed from his records.

__________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He was not given a fair evaluation and rating by his  rating  chain.
He was not asked to provide a speak-up sheet prior to his EPR  being
started as is common practice for all  personnel  in  their  flight.
When he did supply his  speak-up  sheet,  important  temporary  duty
(TDY) information was not used.  The  rater  had  only  69  days  of
actual supervision and did not meet the criteria  for  120  days  of
supervision to justify writing an EPR.  He feels this was one of the
best years of his contributions and performance at Travis AFB yet he
received a lower rating than previous EPRs.

Applicant’s complete submission is attached at Exhibit A.

__________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant’s Total Active Federal Military Service Date  (TAFMSD)
is 12 Apr 82.  He is currently serving  in  the  Regular  Air  Force
(RegAF) in the grade of master sergeant, effective, and with a  date
of rank (DOR) of 1 Feb 00.

Applicant’s EPR profile since 1990 follows:

            PERIOD ENDING          OVERALL EVALUATION

              9 Jan 90                     4
             25 Sep 90                     5
             25 Sep 91                     5
             25 Sep 92                     5
             28 Oct 93                     5
             28 Oct 94                     5
             28 Oct 95                     5
             28 Oct 96                     5
           * 28 Oct 97                     4
             17 May 98                     5
             17 May 99                     5
             17 May 00                     5

*  Contested report.

A similar appeal was filed under AFI 36-2401, Correcting Officer and
Enlisted Evaluation Reports, which  was  denied  by  the  Evaluation
Reports Appeal Board (ERAB) on 2 Apr 98.

__________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The Chief,  Inquiries/AFBCMR  Section,  AFPC/DPPPWB,  reviewed  this
application and indicated that the first time  the  report  will  be
considered in the promotion process is cycle 02E8 to  senior  master
sergeant (promotions effective Apr 02 - Mar 03).  Should  the  Board
grant his request, providing he is otherwise eligible, the applicant
will be entitled to supplemental promotion  consideration  beginning
with cycle 02E8.  However, should a favorable decision  be  received
by 1 Feb 02, there will be sufficient time to make the correction to
his records prior to the time the 02E8 Evaluation Board convenes.

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

The Chief, Evaluation Procedures Section, AFPC/DPPPEP, also reviewed
this application and indicated that  while  Air  Force  policy  does
charge a rater to get meaningful information from the ratee  and  as
many sources as possible, it is the rater’s ultimate  responsibility
to determine which accomplishments  are  included  on  the  EPR  and
whether or  not  it  is  necessary  for  him  to  gather  additional
information from other  sources  in  order  to  render  an  accurate
assessment of the individual.

DPPPEP states that to prove the number of days of supervision on the
contested report is erroneous, the  applicant  should  submit  1)  a
statement from his rater  or  commander  indicating  the  “from  and
through” dates of supervision, and 2)  paid  travel  vouchers  or  a
statement  from  finance  documenting  leave  and  TDY  during   the
contested reporting period.  If the applicant substantiates  he  had
absences of 30 or more consecutive days during the rating period, it
would be appropriate to change the number of  days  of  supervision.
However, it would not be appropriate to void the  report  unless  he
proves there were less than  120  days  of  supervision  during  the
reporting period.

While the applicant contends the contested EPR is inconsistent  with
his performance while stationed at Travis AFB, it is not  reasonable
to compare one report covering a certain period of time with another
report covering a different period of time.  This does not allow for
changes in the ratee’s performance and does not follow the intent of
the governing directives.  The EPR was designed to provide a  rating
for a specific period of time based on the performance noted  during
that period, not based on previous performance.   If  the  applicant
believes there may have been a personality conflict between him  and
the rater, he should provide official  substantiation  of  error  or
injustice from the Inspector  General  (IG)  or  Social  Actions  as
appropriate.   Additionally,  since  the   applicant   has   delayed
processing this appeal, it would be difficult if not impossible  for
the IG or Social Actions to conduct a meaningful investigation.

DPPPEP  states  that  while  current  Air  Force   policy   requires
performance feedback for personnel,  a  direct  correlation  between
information provided during feedback sessions and the assessments on
evaluation reports does not necessarily exist.  Lack  of  counseling
or feedback, by itself, is not sufficient to challenge the  accuracy
or justness of a report.   Evaluators  must  confirm  they  did  not
provide counseling or feedback, and that this directly  resulted  in
an unfair evaluation.  The applicant  did  not  include  memorandums
from the evaluators of the contested report.  Instead,  he  provided
memorandums from individuals outside the rating chain.  While  those
individuals are entitled to their opinions of the  applicant’s  duty
performance and the events occurring around the  time  the  EPR  was
rendered, DPPPEP does not believe they were in a better position  to
evaluate his duty  performance  than  those  who  were  specifically
assigned  that  responsibility.   Based  on  the  lack  of  relevant
evidence provided, DPPPEP recommends denial of applicant’s request.

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

__________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to  applicant  on
23 Feb 01 for review and response.  As of this date, no response has
been received by this office.

__________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

1.    The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by  existing
law or regulations.

2.    The application was timely filed.

3.     Insufficient  relevant  evidence  has   been   presented   to
demonstrate the existence of probable error or injustice.   After  a
thorough  review  of  the  evidence  of   record   and   applicant’s
submission, a majority of the Board  finds  no  persuasive  evidence
showing that the applicant  was  rated  unfairly  or  that  the  EPR
remarks were inconsistent with his duty performance.  The rater  was
tasked  with  the  responsibility  of  assessing   the   applicant’s
performance during the period in question and is  presumed  to  have
rendered his evaluation based on his  personal  observation  of  the
applicant’s  duty  performance.   While   the   applicant   provided
statements from individuals outside the rating chain, a majority  of
the Board is not persuaded that these  statements  substantiate  his
allegation that the contested report was incorrect or unfair at  the
time it was  written.   These  individuals  were  not  charged  with
assessing the applicant’s performance during the  contested  period.
Furthermore, we note the applicant’s assertion that  the  rater  did
not meet the criteria for 120 days of supervision to justify writing
the EPR.  However, other than his own  assertions,  he  provided  no
evidence to substantiate his claim.  The majority of the Board found
that the applicant has not presented any evidence showing  that  the
rater was unable to render an unbiased assessment of his performance
or that the report was prepared contrary to the governing regulation
in effect at the time.  After reviewing the evidence  provided,  the
majority of the Board finds that the applicant has not sustained his
burden to demonstrate the existence of error or injustice.  Based on
the foregoing, and in the absence of evidence to the  contrary,  the
majority of  the  Board  finds  no  compelling  basis  to  favorably
consider the  applicant’s  request  that  the  contested  report  be
removed from his records.

__________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:

A majority of the panel finds  insufficient  evidence  of  error  or
injustice and recommends the application be denied.

__________________________________________________________________

The following members of the Board considered  this  application  in
Executive Session on 18 April 2001,  under  the  provisions  of  Air
Force Instruction 36-2603:

                  Mr. Patrick R. Wheeler, Panel Chair
                  Mr. Lawrence R. Leehy, Member
                  Ms. Marilyn Thomas, Member

By a majority vote, the Board recommended denial of the application.
 Mr. Leehy voted to grant the relief sought but  does  not  wish  to
submit a minority report.  The following  documentary  evidence  was
considered:



The following documentary evidence was considered:

     Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 12 Jan 01, w/atchs.
     Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
     Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPWB, dated 24 Jan 01.
     Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPEP, dated 31 Jan 01, w/atch.
     Exhibit E.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 23 Feb 01.




                                   PATRICK R. WHEELER

                                   Panel Chair



MEMORANDUM   FOR   THE   EXECUTIVE   DIRECTOR,   AIR    FORCE    BOARD
                        FOR    CORRECTION    OF    MILITARY    RECORDS
                          (AFBCMR)

SUBJECT:  AFBCMR Application of
                 Docket Number 01-00153

      I have carefully reviewed the evidence of record and the
recommendation of the Board members.  A majority found that applicant
had not provided substantial evidence of error or injustice and
recommended the case be denied.  I concur with that finding and their
conclusion that relief is not warranted.  Accordingly, I accept their
recommendation that the application be denied.

      Please advise the applicant accordingly.



                                        JOE G. LINEBERGER
                                        Director
                                        Air Force Review Boards Agency