RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  01-01228
            INDEX CODE:  111.05

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

The Enlisted Performance Report (EPR)  rendered  for  the  period  2 January
1998 to 1 January 1999, be declared void.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The rating he received was invalid due  to  the  fact  that  his  rater  and
indorser only rated him on the 4½ months  that  the  rater  was  on  station
instead of the full 365 day rating period.  He believes he  and  his  former
supervisor had a personality conflict that led to a poor rating.  He  states
he worked long and hard to make a better  squadron  and  tried  to  lead  by
example.  The “2” rating he received was a form of  punishment  and  not  an
accurate assessment of his abilities and dedication to the squadron and  the
United States Air Force.

In support of his appeal, the applicant provided a personal  statement,  the
contested EPR closing 1 January 1999, the Evaluation  Reports  Appeal  Board
(ERAB) Decision,  dated  22  October  1999,  letter  from  former  commander
(Colonel B), dated 9 September 2000, letter from former  commander  (Colonel
S), dated 19 September 2000, letter from former supervisor (Master  Sergeant
P), dated 21 April 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
staff sergeant.

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



EPR profile since 1994 reflects the following:

      PERIOD ENDING    EVALUATION OF POTENTIAL

            30 Aug 94        5
             1 Jan 96        3
             1 Jan 97        5
             1 Jan 98        4
       *  1 Jan 99           2
            31 Dec 99        5
            31 Dec 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  the
first time the contested report was considered in the promotion process  was
cycle 00E6 to technical sergeant (promotions effective August  2000  -  July
2001).  Should the AFBCMR void the report in its entirely,  or  upgrade  the
overall rating, providing he  is  otherwise  eligible  the  applicant  would
normally be entitled to supplemental promotion consideration beginning  with
cycle 00E6.  However, because the applicant would not  be  selected  to  the
grade of technical sergeant during this cycle, and was selected  during  the
next cycle, 01E6, with a date of rank of 1 August 2001, it  would  serve  no
useful purpose to  provide  him  supplemental  consideration  for  the  00E6
cycle.

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

The Chief, Evaluation Programs  Branch,  Directorate  of  Personnel  Program
Management, HQ AFPC/DPPPEP, also reviewed this application and  states  that
the applicant has not provided new supporting  documentation  to  prove  his
contentions.  He has merely raised suspicion of a conflict  between  himself
and his immediate rating chain  with  supporting  letters  from  other  non-
commissioned  officers  (NCOs)  and  previous  supervisors/commanders.    In
worker-supervisor relationships, some  disagreements  are  likely  to  occur
since a  worker  must  abide  by  a  supervisor’s  policies  and  decisions.
Personnel who  do  not  perform  at  expected  standards  or  require  close
supervision may believe that an evaluator  is  personally  biased;  however,
the conflict generated by this personal attention  is  usually  professional
rather than personal.  Applicant  should  provide  firsthand  evidence  that
clearly shows how the conflict prevented  the  evaluator  from  preparing  a
fair and accurate report (i.e. IG report, MEO report, etc).

Although the applicant may  feel  evaluators  have  over  stressed  isolated
incidents or a short period  of  substandard  performance  or  conduct,  the
evaluators are obliged to consider such incidents, their  significance,  and
the  frequency  with  which  they  occurred  in  assessing  performance  and
potential.  Only the evaluators know how much  an  incident  influenced  the
report; therefore, the opinions of individuals outside the rating chain  are
not relevant.  The applicant has not provided  any  documentation  to  prove
the  report  should  be  voided.   Therefore,  they  recommend   denial   of
applicant’s request.

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

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

On 31 August 2001 copies of the Air  Force  evaluations  were  forwarded  to
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  reviewing  the  supporting
documentation submitted by the applicant, we believe that some doubt  exists
as to whether the rater and indorser were  biased  in  their  assessment  of
applicant’s performance due to a possible personality conflict  between  the
applicant and these evaluators.  In our opinion, this possible conflict  may
have adversely influenced these evaluators’  objectivity  in  assessing  the
applicant’s performance.  In this respect, we note the  statement  submitted
from the reviewing commander who indicates  that  the  contested  report  is
inconsistent  and  is  a  “flawed  representation   of   [the   applicant’s]
performance and  capabilities.”   The  commander  indicated  that  she  non-
concurred with the report and submitted an  AF  Form  77,  stating  she  was
advised by her First Sergeant that this would remove  the  contested  report
from referral status.  The commander notes that  the  applicant  and/or  his
subordinates violated COMSEC procedures on three occasions,  however,  these
violations were not the norm and were handled  administratively;  therefore,
she believed the applicant’s overall performance  should  be  considered  as
satisfactory.   Further,  the  statement   from   the   applicant’s   former
commander, during a portion of  the  contested  time  period,  reveals  that
personalities possibly played  a  part  in  the  ratings  on  the  contested
report.  In  view  of  the  foregoing,  and  in  an  effort  to  offset  any
possibility of  an  injustice,  we  believe  the  contested  EPR  should  be
declared void and removed from his records.

_________________________________________________________________

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 2 January 1998 through 1 January 1999,  be
declared void and removed from his records.

_________________________________________________________________

The following members of the Board considered this application in  Executive
Session on 11 October 2001, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

            Mr. Terry A. Yonkers, Panel Chair
            Mr. Joseph A. Roj, Member
            Mr. Steven A. Shaw, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 26 Apr 01, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPWB, dated 2 Aug 01, w/atchs.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPEP, dated 27 Aug 01.
   Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 31 Aug 01.




                 TERRY A. YONKERS
                 Panel Chair



AFBCMR 01-01228





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 2 January 1998 through 1 January 1999,
be, and hereby is, declared void and removed from his records.





            JOE G. LINEBERGER
            Director
            Air Force Review Boards Agency