RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  01-01274
            INDEX CODE:  111.02
            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

The Enlisted Performance Report (EPR), rendered  for  the  period  9 January
1989  through  8  January  1990,  be  changed   to   reflect   a   promotion
recommendation of “5.”
_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The EPR rating of “4” is inconsistent with  the  awards  earned  during  the
contested  reporting  period.   Awards  include  Resource   Plans   Division
Professional Non-Commissioned Officer of the Year,  Air  Force  Commendation
Medal and nomination for TAC Outstanding Logistics Technician of  the  Year.


In support of his application, the applicant submits a copy of  the  EPR  in
question along with other EPRs, a supportive statement from his rater and  a
personal statement from the commander.  The applicant’s complete  submission
is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Information extracted from the Personnel  Data  System  indicates  that  the
applicant entered on active duty on 26  September  1983,  and  is  currently
serving in the grade of TSgt (E-6), with a date of rank of 1 February  1996.


The following is a resume of the  applicant’s  APR/EPR  ratings,  commencing
with the report closing 8 January 1989.

      Period Ending                         Overall Evaluation

       8 Jan 1989                            9
       8 Jan 1990 *                          4
       8 Jan 1991                            5
       5 Oct 1991                            5
       5 Oct 1992                            5
       5 Oct 1993                            5
       1 May 1994                            5
      12 Mar 1995                            5
      12 Mar 1996                            5
      31 Dec 1996                            5
       1 Jun 1997                            5
      28 Apr 1998                            5
      28 Apr 1999                            5
      22 Mar 2000                            5
       2 Jan 2001                            5

Note:  * - Contested Report

A similar appeal by the applicant was considered and denied in 1991  by  the
Evaluation Reports Appeal Board (ERAB).

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The  Chief,  Performance  Evaluation  Section,  AFPC/DPPPEP,  reviewed  this
application and recommends denial.  DPPPEP states  that  citations  are  not
specific enough to offset  the  comments  and  ratings  on  a  report.   The
indorser  approved  the  awards  before  they   were   submitted   and   was
knowledgeable of  them  when  assessing  the  applicant’s  performance.   In
addition, the rater did not provide any  evidence  that  his  rating  rights
were  violated.   Air  Force  policy  requires  indorsers,   reviewers   and
commanders  to  review  evaluation  reports  for  quality  and  to   control
inflationary  tendencies.   These  officials  must  reject  poorly  prepared
reports and downgrade or reject inflated reports.  If, after  discussion,  a
disagreement remains, the disagreeing evaluator marks  the  nonconcur  block
and marks the block they determine more accurately reflects the  applicant’s
performance.  The final evaluator’s decision is then considered the  overall
rating.  It is Air Force policy that an evaluation  report  is  accurate  as
written when it becomes a  matter  of  record.   In  DPPPEP’s  opinion,  the
applicant did not provide sufficient evidence to prove the rating should  be
changed (See Exhibit C).

The Chief, Inquiries/AFBCMR Section, Enlisted Promotion &  Military  Testing
Branch, AFPC/DPPPWB, also reviewed this application  and  advises  that  the
contested report was first considered  in  the  92A6  promotion  process  to
technical sergeant.  The applicant became a select for the 95E6  cycle  with
a date of rank and effective date of 1 February 1996.  Promotion cycle  95E6
was the last cycle the contested EPR was eligible for  consideration.   This
evaluation is at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the  applicant  on  22
June 2001 for review  and  comment.   As  of  this  date,  this  office  has
received no response.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

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

2.  The application was not timely filed; however, it is in the interest  of
justice to excuse the failure to timely file.

3.  Sufficient relevant evidence  has  been  presented  to  demonstrate  the
existence of probable error or injustice with respect to the rater’s  rating
on the EPR closing 9 January 1989.  The rater’s statement was sufficient  to
persuade us that some doubt exists concerning the accuracy of the  contested
report.  We believe it is significant that this was  the  first  report  the
applicant received under the new rating system.   It  is  entirely  possible
that the report was rendered on the basis of  an  organizational  policy  to
award the highest ratings based  on  the  member’s  proximity  to  promotion
eligibility rather than the applicant’s duty performance and the  awards  he
earned during the reporting period.  Furthermore, and more  importantly,  we
have no reason to doubt the veracity of the rater’s comments to  the  effect
that he was precluded from exercising his independent judgment in  assigning
the  applicant’s  promotion  recommendation  rating  and  that  it  was  his
intention to rate the applicant  as  a  “5.”   In  view  of  the  above,  we
recommend that the applicant’s records be corrected as indicated below.

4.  We considered the applicant’s request that the report closing 8  January
1990 be  upgraded  to  an  overall  promotion  recommendation  of  “5.”   In
addition to changing the  rater’s  rating,  such  action  would  affect  the
indorser’s rating and the commander’s concurrence.  However, we do not  find
the evidence provided sufficient to warrant this relief.  While we may  have
been inclined to give the applicant the benefit of the doubt by voiding  the
report, without the support of  the  later  rating  officials,  we  are  not
inclined to upgrade or otherwise  change  their  assessments.   Furthermore,
because the rating by the final evaluator is considered the overall  rating,
and since the overall rating was the only  factor  under  consideration  for
the applicant’s  promotion  to  technical  sergeant,  granting  supplemental
considerations on the basis of the correction  we  propose  would  serve  no
useful purpose.

_________________________________________________________________

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 9 January 1989 through 8 January 1990,  be
amended in Section IV, Promotion Recommendation, by deleting the marking  in
the “4” block and placing  a  marking  in  the  “5”  block  of  the  Rater’s
Recommendation; and, in Section VI, Indorser’s  Comments,  by  deleting  the
marking in the “Concur” block  and  inserting  a  marking  to  indicate  the
indorser nonconcurred with the rater’s rating.

_________________________________________________________________

The following members of the Board considered this application in  Executive
Session on 16 August 2001, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

      Mr. Jackson A. Hauslein, Panel Chair
      Mr. Roscoe Hinton, Jr., Member
      Mr. Lawrence R. Leehy, Member

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

     Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 2 May 2001 w/atchs.
     Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPEP, dated 19 June 2001.
     Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/ DPPPWB, dated 22 May 2001.
     Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 22 June 2001.




                                  JACKSON HAUSLEIN
                                  Panel Chair

AFBCMR 01-01274




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 9 January 1989 through 8 January 1990 be,
and hereby is, declared void and removed from his records.

      It is further directed that he be provided supplemental consideration
for promotion to the grade of technical sergeant for all appropriate cycles
commencing with cycle 92A6.

      If AFPC discovers any adverse factors during or subsequent to
supplemental consideration that are separate and apart, and unrelated to
the issues involved in this application, that would have rendered the
applicant ineligible for the promotion, such information will be documented
and presented to the Board for a final determination on the individual’s
qualification for the promotion.

      If supplemental promotion consideration results in the selection for
promotion to the higher grade, immediately after such promotion the records
shall be corrected to show that he was promoted to the higher grade
effective and with a date of rank as established by the supplemental
promotion and that he is entitled to all pay, allowances, and benefits of
such grade as of that date.






  JOE G. LINEBERGER

  Director

  Air Force Review Boards Agency

AFBCMR 01-01274



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

SUBJECT:  AFBCMR Application of

      I have carefully reviewed all aspects of this case and agree with the
opinion of the Board regarding the accuracy of the contested report.  I
believe there is no reason to doubt the rater's comments that he was
precluded from exercising his independent judgment in assigning the
applicant’s promotion recommendation rating and that it was his intention
to rate the applicant as a “5.”  I also agree with the panel that the
evidence does not support an outright upgrading of the assessments of the
indorser and the commander.  However, it is my opinion that, because of the
apparent coercion involved in the completion of this report, to merely
upgrade the rater’s rating does not provide the applicant adequate relief.
In my estimation and although the applicant has not requested such action,
the only way to afford him proper and fitting relief is to completely
remove from his record any evidence of the irregular rating practices used
in the preparation of the contested report would be to remove this document
from his record, in its entirety.  In addition, he should be granted
supplemental consideration for promotion to the grade of technical sergeant
for all appropriate cycles commencing with cycle 92A6.





                       JOE G. LINEBERGER
                       Director
                       Air Force Review Boards Agency