RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  01-00201
                       INDEX CODE:  111.02

      APPLICANT  COUNSEL:  None

      SSN        HEARING DESIRED:  No

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

The Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) closing 31 May 90 be removed and
replaced with the “5” EPR closing 31 May 90 and in Section  V  of  the
replacement EPR change the statement to read:  “Ratee has  established
that feedback wasn’t provided IAW AFR  39-62.”   He  would  also  like
supplemental promotion consideration for cycles 99E8 and 00E8.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The ratings in Section III and IV were given in part  to  comply  with
rating quotas.  The rater misled the indorser into believing the lower
ratings and watered down comments were warranted.  The rater  did  not
perform mandatory Performance Feedback in accordance with AFR 39-62.

The applicant feels his EPR with the overall “4” rating had a negative
impact on his board scores when he met the 99E8 and 00E8 SMSgt Boards.

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 99E8 Senior Master Sergeant (SMSgt) Evaluation Board convened on 1
Feb 99 and the promotion selections were announced  10  Mar  99.   The
applicant’s board score for the 99E8  board  was  397.50.   His  total
score was 633.39 and the score required for selection was 647.77.  The
00E8 board convened on 14 Feb 00 and the selections were announced  on
15 Mar 00.  His 00E8 board score was  345.00.   His  total  score  was
593.21 and the score required for selection was 639.35.

The applicant filed an appeal for his EPR closing out 31 Jul 98  under
the  provisions  of  AFI  36-2401,  Correcting  Officer  and  Enlisted
Evaluations Reports.  The Evaluation Reports Appeal Board (ERAB) ruled
in his favor on this application.  The  applicant  elected  to  appeal
directly to the BCMR regarding his EPR closing out 31 May  90  due  to
lack of support from that rater and a lack of support from his current
commander regarding supplemental promotion consideration.

EPR profile since 1990 reflects the following:

                 PERIOD ENDING               OVERALL EVALUATION

                  *31 May 90                       4
                   10 Jan 91                       5
                   10 Jan 92                       5
                   07 Jun 92                       5
                   15 Nov 92                       5
                   15 Nov 93                       5
                   31 May 94                       5
                   31 May 95                       5
                   31 Jan 96                       5
                   22 Oct 96                       5
                   22 Oct 97                       5
                   31 Jul 98                       5
                   06 Jun 99                       5
                   06 Jun 00                       5

* Contested report.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR STAFF EVALUATION:

The Chief, Inquiries/BCMR Section, Enlisted Promotion  &  Mil  Testing
Branch, AFPC/DPPPWB,  reviewed  this  application  and  based  on  the
applicant’s date of rank (DOR) for master sergeant, the first cycle he
was considered for SMSgt was the 99E8  cycle.   The  applicant  missed
promotion selection by 14.38 points for the 99E8 cycle and  46.14  for
00E8 cycle.  The applicant will compete  five  more  times  for  SMSgt
before he reaches his high year tenure  of  Sep  05  providing  he  is
recommended and is otherwise eligible.

The selection board uses the  whole  person  concept  in  subjectively
assessing  each  servicemember’s  selection  folder,  giving   careful
consideration to job performance, professional competence, leadership,
job responsibility, breadth of experience,  awards,  decorations,  and
professional military and academic education.  Ten years of  EPRs  are
maintained in the selection folder  and  this  is  done  to  show  the
progression of a servicemember’s career.

According to AFI 36-2502, Airman Promotion Program, Table 2.5  and  HQ
AFPC/DPP 081945Z message effective 22 Oct  00  supplemental  promotion
consideration will be granted on a case by case basis.  The purpose of
this change is to reduce the number of “after the fact”  changes  that
are initiated in an effort to get a second opportunity for  promotion.
The applicant did not take appropriate corrective or follow-up  action
before the original board convened  for  the  99E8  and  00E8  cycles.
Although the applicant submitted with his application an AF Form  948,
Application for Correction/Removal of Evaluation Reports, he  did  not
submit this request to the office of primary responsibility for  EPRs,
presumably  because  the  Squadron   Section   Commander   recommended
disapproval of the request.  The contested EPR will not be  considered
for the 01E8 cycle because it is outside of the 10-year period of EPRs
contained in the selection folder.  Based on  the  rationale  provided
they recommend denying the applicant’s request.  (Exhibit C)

The Chief,  Evaluation  Programs  Branch,  AFPC/DPPPE,  reviewed  this
application and stated the applicant contends  his  overall  promotion
recommendation of 4 was a result of a rating quota system  established
by the Chief of Staff of the Air Force (CSAF) and was  adhered  to  by
his rating chain.  This is speculation on the part of  the  applicant.
During this time period the Air Force provided rating expectations and
not quotas, as a guideline for evaluators to use regarding appropriate
ratings.  It is noted in the applicant’s own submission that the  CSAF
explains statistics provided  regarding  Enlisted  Evaluation  Systems
(EES) ratings and indorsement ”…are not quotas.  They are  to  provide
raters with an understanding of  general  expectations.   Expectations
give a general idea of what distributions should  be  by  grade.   The
rating expectations are a guide and everyone  should  get  the  rating
they earned and deserve.”  The CSAF is clear, rating  quotas  did  not
exist in the Air Force.

The  applicant  alleges  that  the  rater  misled  the  indorser  into
believing the lower ratings and watered down comments were  warranted,
but he did not provide any proof  to  justify  this  allegation.   The
applicant did provide a letter of recommendation  from  the  commander
supporting the upgrading  of  the  EPR  ratings  and  changes  to  his
original comments.  The commander has not provided clear-cut  evidence
or specific incidents  on  how  he  was  misled  by  the  rater.   The
commander goes on to state that he knows the whole story and  that  he
would like the opportunity to correct an  injustice.   There  has  not
been any evidence provided to tell what the whole  story  is  and  the
commander has only addressed this issue in broad general terms.

The applicant also alleges he did not receive mandatory feedback  from
his rater, which would contribute to invalidating the EPR as currently
written and filed.  This contention was never fully supported  by  the
applicant or the commander.   It  is  unclear  whether  the  commander
researched the feedback issue or  was  persuaded  by  the  applicant’s
request to him for support.  According to AFR 39-62 a rater’s  failure
to conduct a required or  requested  feedback  session  will  not,  of
itself, invalidate any subsequent EPR.

The applicant has not proven the EPR is an  inaccurate  evaluation  of
his performance during that rating period.  It is reasonable to assume
the commander worked closely with  the  NCOIC  of  his  orderly  room,
especially if the NCOIC filled in for the squadron  section  commander
for extended periods of time during her absence.  The commander  would
have been in a good position to properly evaluate the applicant’s duty
performance.  It is unreasonable to conclude the commander  now,  over
10 years later, has a better understanding  of  the  applicant’s  duty
performance for that  time  period.   An  evaluator’s  willingness  to
change a report is not a valid reason for doing  so  unless  there  is
clear evidence of an error or injustice.  DPPPE  finds  no  errors  or
injustice  regarding  the  contested  EPR,  therefore  they  recommend
denying the applicant’s request.  (Exhibit D)

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR STAFF EVALUATION:

Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on
9 Mar 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  thoroughly
reviewing the documentation submitted with this  appeal,  we  are  not
persuaded that the contested report is an inaccurate assessment of the
applicant's  performance  during  the  contested  time  period.    The
applicant asserts, and his First Sergeant concurs, that the  contested
report was written as a result of  a  quota  system  employed  by  the
applicant's squadron and wing; however, the Board  finds  insufficient
documentation to support this contention.  Further, we note  that  the
First Sergeant was not tasked with  rendering  an  assessment  of  the
applicant's performance during this time  period.   Additionally,  the
statement from the indorser is duly noted; however, we note  that  the
indorser does not specify  what  the  "whole  story"  is;  rather,  it
appears  that  he  signed  a  memorandum  prepared  by  the  applicant
indicating what the applicant's duties were during the contested  time
period.  In the opinion of the Board, if the applicant were filling in
for his supervisor,  the  squadron  section  commander,  the  squadron
commander would have been  aware  of  the  duties  and  how  well  the
applicant performed them.  It appears that the  rating  chain  members
provided their honest assessment of the  applicant's  performance  and
promotion potential.  In the absence of more convincing evidence,  the
Board finds no basis upon  which  to  recommend  granting  the  relief
sought in this application.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:

The  applicant  be  notified  that  the  evidence  presented  did  not
demonstrate the existence of probable  material  error  or  injustice;
that the application was denied without  a  personal  appearance;  and
that the application will only be reconsidered upon the submission  of
newly  discovered  relevant  evidence   not   considered   with   this
application.

_________________________________________________________________

The following members of the  Board  considered  this  application  in
Executive Session on 8 May 2001, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

                       Mr. Teddy L. Houston, Panel Chair
                       Mr. John L. Robuck, Member
                       Mr. Edward H. Parker, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

      Exhibit A. DD Form 149, 19 Jan 01, w/atchs.
      Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
      Exhibit C. Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPPWB, dated 7 Feb 01.
      Exhibit D. Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPPE, dated 20 Feb 01.
      Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 9 Mar 01.




                             TEDDY L. HOUSTON
                             Panel Chair