RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  01-00937
            INDEX CODE:  111.00

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO


_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

The Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) rendered for the period  1 April  1997
through 5 January 1998, be declared void.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

There was lack of supervision that led to the inaccurate marking in  Section
III, Item 7, of the contested EPR.  He held a position higher than  that  of
the rater when the EPR closed out; therefore,  the  rater  should  not  have
signed Section V.  The rater was removed  from  his  position  in  September
1997 and demoted to technical sergeant (TSgt) on 10 October 1997.   He  (the
applicant) assumed  the  position  of  Non-Commissioned  Officer  In  Charge
(NCOIC).  The EPR in question was signed 54 days after  supervision  on  the
next EPR began which was on 28 February  1998.   For  whatever  reason,  his
former rater did not write an EPR on him before  his  demotion.   He  states
that he was not aware that a change of rater (COR)  was  completed  to  show
that he had a new rater.  He asked about it, but was told that the  date  of
supervision would probably be back-dated.  He checked  his  records  several
times to confirm that an EPR was not done.   He  then  found  out  that  the
rater at that time wrote an EPR on him as a TSgt.   He  not  only  outranked
him, but he held a higher  position.   He  spoke  with  the  rater  and  the
indorser at that time and they both agreed to rewrite the  EPR.   He  states
that he would like his accomplishments during that time frame to be  a  part
of his records.

In support of his appeal, the applicant provides the contested EPR  dated  5
January 1998, ERAB’s decision, dated 23 June 1999, a letter from the  rater,
dated 24 March 1999, 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
master sergeant.

The applicant appealed the contested report under the provisions of AFI  36-
2401 and the appeal was considered by the Evaluation  Reports  Appeal  Board
(ERAB) which declined to formally review the appeal and directed its  return
without action.  The Board was unable  to  make  a  decision  in  this  case
without complete documentation  and  a  substitute  report.   The  applicant
requested the EPR be resubmitted or have two letters attached to the EPR  as
"Memo of Mitigation.”

EPR profile since 1991 reflects the following:

          PERIOD ENDING      OVERALL EVALUATION

           31 Mar 96                     5
           31 Mar 97                     5
          * 5 Jan 98                     5
           30 Jun 98                     5
           30 Jun 99                     5
           30 Jun 00                     5

     *  Contested report.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The Chief, Inquiries/AFBCMR Section, Enlisted Promotion &  Military  Testing
Branch, AFPC/DPPPWB, states that the first time  the  contested  report  was
considered in the promotion  process  was  cycle  99E7  to  master  sergeant
(promotions effective August 1999 - July 2000).  Should the AFBCMR void  the
report in its entirety, or upgrade  block,  7,  providing  he  is  otherwise
eligible, the applicant would not  be  entitled  to  supplemental  promotion
consideration for cycle 99E7.  The overall rating  is  a  “5,”  the  highest
rating, and his score would not increase if the AFBCMR grants  the  request.
The applicant became a select during the 00E7 cycle with a date of rank  and
effective date of 1 April  2001.   It  would  serve  no  useful  purpose  to
provide him with supplemental consideration for the 99E7 cycle as  he  could
not be selected.

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

The Chief, Performance Evaluation Section, Directorate of Personnel  Program
Management, AFPC/DPPPEP, also reviewed this application and states that  the
member contends the EPR is unjust because he received a front-side  markdown
in Section III, Item 7.   He  included  a  memorandum  from  his  rater  who
states, “I transferred to a new duty section…I was  unable  to  examine  any
improvement on his written communication skills…it’s  highly  probable  that
this rating was reached unfairly.”  The rater does  not  specifically  state
he made an error on the EPR.  Even if he did, it would  not  be  appropriate
to void the EPR based solely on that front-side mark down.  When  requesting
an entire report be voided, the applicant must take into consideration  that
any complimentary comments on the contested  report  will  also  be  removed
from the records if the request is approved.

The applicant further contends  the  report  should  be  voided  because  he
outranked the technical sergeant who wrote the EPR (he  contends  his  rater
was demoted to technical sergeant effective 10 October 1997).  As  the  ERAB
pointed out in their letter, a rater may be in a grade equal  to  or  higher
than the ratee in the ratee’s rating chain.  However, the rater must  be  in
a supervisory position that is higher  than  the  ratee.   The  organization
chart the applicant included (an excerpt from an Air Force  directive)  does
not prove anything without  a  letter  from  the  commander  indicating  who
filled each position.

If the AFBCMR decides relief is warranted, they do not believe it  would  be
in the applicant’s best interest to void the EPR (doing so  would  erase  an
entire  year   of   accomplishments).    The   report   can   be   corrected
administratively by changing the rater’s grade to master  sergeant,  closing
the EPR on 9 October 1997 (the day before the member was demoted  and  moved
to another section), and the  “number  days”  supervision  to  192.   Making
these changes would correct the perceived errors on  the  EPR  and  maintain
the integrity of his record.

Air Force policy is that an evaluation report is accurate  as  written  when
it becomes a matter of record.  To  effectively  challenge  an  EPR,  it  is
necessary to hear from all the members of  the  rating  chain-not  only  for
support, but also for clarification/explanation.  The applicant  has  failed
to provide any information/support from the rating chain  on  the  contested
EPR.   In   the   absence   of   information   from   evaluators,   official
substantiation of error or injustice from  the  Inspector  General  (IG)  or
Military Equal Opportunity is appropriate, but not provided  in  this  case.
Therefore, they recommend denial of the applicant’s request.

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


_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

On 18 May 2001, copies of the Air Force evaluations were  forwarded  to  the
applicant for review and response within  thirty  (30)  days.   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.    Sufficient relevant evidence has been  presented  to  demonstrate  the
existence of probable error or injustice.  After  thoroughly  reviewing  the
evidence of record, we note the statement from  the  applicant's  rater  who
indicates he transferred to a new duty section and  was  unable  to  examine
any improvements in the  applicant’s  skills;  therefore,  he  rendered  his
assessment from previous feedback performance  sheets  and  not  the  actual
observance of the applicant’s ability to increase  his  skills.   The  rater
believes the rating was reached unfairly.   Further,  we  believe  there  is
some doubt whether the rater  should  have  rendered  the  contested  report
considering his new duty title following  his  demotion.   In  view  of  the
above,  the  evidence  presented  raises  sufficient  doubt  regarding   the
accuracy of the contested report, and that such doubt should be resolved  in
his favor.  Therefore, we recommend that the entire  report  be  voided  and
removed from his records.  As  indicated  by  AFPC/DPPPWB,  by  voiding  the
contested report, the  applicant  would  not  be  entitled  to  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 1 April 1997 through 5 January  1998,  be,
and hereby is, declared void and removed from his records.

_________________________________________________________________

he following members of the Board considered this application  in  Executive
Session on 26 June 2001, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

            Mr. Richard A. Peterson, Panel Chair
            Mr. Laurence M. Groner, Member
            Mr. Clarence D. Long, III, Member

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

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 26 March 2001, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPWB, dated 13 April 2001.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPEP, dated 18 April 2001.
   Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 18 May 2001.




                 RICHARD A. PETERSON
                 Panel Chair

AFBCMR 01-00937





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 April 1997 through 5 January 1998,
be, and hereby is, declared void and removed from his records.





            JOE G. LINEBERGER
            Director
            Air Force Review Boards Agency