RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  01-00348
            INDEX CODE:  126.00

      APPLICANT  COUNSEL:  NONE

      SSN   HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) for the period 6 Mar 97  through
5 Mar 98 be removed from his records.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

His rater, MSgt D. was coerced/influenced into  changing  the  overall
rating on his EPR.

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 staff sergeant.

The applicant submitted an appeal under the provisions of AFI 36-2401,
Correcting Officer and Enlisted Evaluation Reports, which  was  denied
by the Evaluation Reports Appeal Board (ERAB).

Applicant’s EPR profile since 1995 reflects the following:

      PERIOD ENDING               EVALUATION OF POTENTIAL

          23 Feb 95                          5
           5 Mar 96                          5
           5 Mar 97                          5
         * 5 Mar 98                          4
           5 Mar 99                          5
           5 Mar 00                          5

*Contested report.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The Chief, Inquiries/AFBCMR Section, Enlisted  Promotions  &  Military
Testing Branch, AFPC/DPPPWB, reviewed this application and stated  the
first time the  contested  report  was  considered  in  the  promotion
process was cycle 99E6 to Technical Sergeant.  If the Board voids  the
report in its entirety, or upgrades the overall rating,  providing  he
is otherwise eligible, the applicant will be entitled to  supplemental
consideration beginning with  99E6  cycle.   The  applicant  will  not
become a selectee during cycles 99E6 or 00E6 if the Board  grants  the
request.  The  applicant’s  EPR  will  not  be  considered  again  for
promotion until 01E6.  However, if favorable results are received by 1
May 01, supplemental consideration will not be required.

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

The Chief, Performance Evaluation Section,  Directorate  of  Personnel
Program Management, AFPC/DPPPEP, reviewed this application and  states
the applicant filed an appeal to the ERAB to remove the  EPR  and  his
request was denied.  The  applicant  included  with  his  request  the
decision memorandum from the ERAB.  DPPPEP concurs with their  finding
and further states that under the governing AFI 36-2403, The  Enlisted
Evaluation System, the Air Force charges  evaluators  with  discussing
differences in ratings, reviewing reports for quality and  controlling
inflationary tendencies.  The rater stated that he and the  additional
rater agreed the applicant deserved the overall rating of 5, but  that
two individuals outside of the rating chain  threatened  to  attach  a
letter of disapproval if they did not change the overall rating  to  a
4.  To prove  allegations  of  coercion,  clear  evidence  must  exist
proving the superior violated the evaluator’s rating rights.   In  the
applicant’s case the two individuals were not in his chain of command.
 DPPPEP does not believe the evaluator’s rating rights  were  violated
and furthermore there is no such thing as a “letter of disapproval.”

Air Force policy is that an evaluation report is accurate  as  written
when it becomes a matter of record.  When challenging an  EPR,  it  is
necessary to hear from all in the member’s rating chain--not only  for
support,  but  also  for  clarification/explanation.   The   applicant
included a memorandum from his rater,  however,  he  did  not  provide
support from the  other  members  of  the  rating  chain  or  official
findings from any other  source  proving  coercion  occurred.   DPPPEP
recommends denying the applicant’s request (Exhibit D).

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on
6 Apr 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.
Applicant’s contentions are duly noted, as is the statement from  the
rater;  however,  this  statement  does  not  persuade  us  that  the
applicant was rated unfairly or that the report  is  in  error.   The
rater states that the evaluation was a result of being  told  by  the
Chief of Maintenance and a chief master sergeant,  presumably  within
the organization, that if he (the rater) did not  lower  the  rating,
they would attach a “letter of disapproval” to the contested  report.
However, there is no substantiation from either the indorser  or  the
commander that there was pressure put on the rater to  downgrade  the
contested  report.   We  therefore  agree  with   the   opinion   and
recommendation of the Air Force and  adopt  their  rationale  as  the
basis for our conclusion that the applicant has not been  the  victim
of either an error or an injustice.  In view  of  the  foregoing,  we
find no  compelling  basis  upon  which  to  recommend  granting  the
requested relief.

_________________________________________________________________

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 31 May 2001, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

                       Ms. Kathy L. Boockholdt, Panel Chair
                       Ms. Barbara J. White-Olson, Member
                       Mr. Steven A. Shaw, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

      Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 30 Jan 01, w/atchs.
      Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
      Exhibit C. Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPPWB, dated 20 Feb 01.
      Exhibit D. Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPPEP, dated 19 Mar 01.
      Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 6 Apr 01.




                             KATHY L. BOOCKHOLDT
                             Panel Chair