RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:            DOCKET NUMBERS:  01-01423
                                    INDEX CODE 111.02  111.03  111.05
                 COUNSEL:  None

                 HEARING DESIRED:  Yes

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

The Enlisted Performance Report rendered for  the  period  10  Apr  99
through 1 Nov 99 be removed from his records.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The contested report does not  reflect  an  accurate  account  of  his
performance during this period. It  was  written  with  prejudice  and
endorsed by the wrong individual.  The  rater’s  rater,  a  lieutenant
colonel (LTC), was  skipped  for  the  sole  purpose  of  closing  the
evaluation at the unit commander’s level without  contradiction.   The
unit commander, a colonel, was biased  against  him,  the  rater,  and
other station personnel.  His efforts to  rectify  this  problem  have
been unsuccessful; neither the rater nor the colonel has responded  to
his requests.

The applicant provides a memo from the  LTC  who  states  he  was  the
rating official for the rater of the contested EPR; however, he is not
a rating official on any portion of this evaluation.  Also provided is
a memo from an Army personnel specialist and a spreadsheet  indicating
the LTC was the rater’s  rater.  The  Senior  Enlisted  Advisor  (SEA)
indicates that the rater, an Army captain, was new to command and  not
familiar with the Air Force evaluation system.  Further,  as  SEA,  he
reviewed all EPRs but was not given  the  opportunity  to  review  the
applicant’s.  The  applicant’s  current  rater  provides  a  statement
supporting the request to void the contested EPR.

His complete submission is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant is currently serving in the Regular  Air  Force  in  the
grade of senior master sergeant (SMSgt) with a date of rank of  1  Mar
97, and is assigned to HQ AFOSI at Andrews AFB, MD.

During  the  period  in  question,  the  applicant   was   a   station
superintendent assigned to the Defense Courier Service (DCS),  Station
Baltimore, at Ft. Meade, MD.

With the exception of the contested EPR, which has an  overall  rating
of “4,” all of the applicant’s  performance  reports  from  21 Jun  91
through 1 Nov 01 reflect overall ratings of “5.”

The unit commander who  signed  the  contested  EPR  also  signed  the
previous EPR (21 Apr 98 thru 9 Apr  99)  as  the  rater’s  rater.  The
overall rating for that report was “5.” The raters  for  both  reports
were Army captains.

The applicant was considered but not selected  for  promotion  to  the
grade of chief in cycle 00E9.

The applicant filed a similar appeal under the provisions of  AFI  36-
2603 on 7 Mar 01; however, the Evaluation Reports Appeal Board  (ERAB)
denied his case on 4 Apr 01.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The Chief, Inquiries/AFBCMR  Section,  HQ  AFPC/DPPPWB,  advises  that
supplemental promotion consideration is normally not  granted  if  the
error or omission appeared on  a  member’s  Data  Verification  Record
(DVR) or in the Unit Personnel Record Group (UPRG) and the  individual
did not take the appropriate corrective or follow-up action before the
original promotion board convened. The Chief believes  that,  although
the applicant did not take appropriate corrective or follow-up  action
before the original board convened  on  23  Oct  00  for  cycle  00E9,
supplemental promotion is warranted should the EPR be voided.

A complete copy of the evaluation, with attachment, is at Exhibit C.

The Chief, Performance Evaluation Section, HQ AFPC/DPPPEP, asserts the
applicant has not supported his allegation  that  his  unit  commander
wrote  the  contested  report  with  prejudice.   If   his   unfounded
allegations of biased actions against himself or others had  occurred,
it is reasonable to believe the applicant would have  filed  a  formal
complaint.   The  spreadsheet  is  not  the   appropriate   supporting
documentation for the applicant’s claim that the LTC should have  been
the rater’s rater.  It is more than reasonable  to  believe  that  the
unit commander was  his  rater’s  rater  as  was  in  the  applicant’s
previous  EPR.   Without  documentation  to  prove  otherwise,  it  is
reasonable to conclude that  the  unit  commander  was  also  his  new
rater’s rater.  Even if the LTC were skipped as a rater’s  rater,  the
unit  commander  would  have  had  the  authority  to   evaluate   the
applicant’s duty performance and comment on his  EPR.  Therefore,  the
applicant cannot make the claim that  the  comments  on  his  EPR  are
somehow invalid.  Denial is recommended.

A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Copies of the complete Air Force evaluations  were  forwarded  to  the
applicant on 29 Jun 01 for review and comment within 30 days.   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 timely filed.

3.    Sufficient relevant evidence has been presented  to  demonstrate
the existence of probable error or injustice  warranting  voidance  of
the  contested  EPR.   After  reviewing  the   supporting   statements
submitted by the applicant and his performance history,  the  majority
of the Board is persuaded that the accuracy of the contested report is
at least questionable.  In this regard, we, the majority, note that in
a remarkably short period of time (16 Jul 99 to 3 Dec 99) the  rater’s
rater’s  assessment  changed  from  a  glowing  “Strong  leader.  .  .
outstanding NCO. . . definitely Chief Master Sergeant material”  to  a
lack luster “With additional leadership experience he will continue to
serve the USAF well.”  Further, the SEA asserts  the  applicant’s  EPR
was the only one he was not given an opportunity to review.  The Board
majority cannot determine with certainty  whether  another  individual
should have been the  rater’s  rater  as  alleged  by  the  applicant.
However, given the discrepancies and inconsistencies contained in  the
contested report, the Board majority  believes  any  doubt  should  be
resolved in this applicant’s favor.  Therefore, in order  to  preclude
any possibility of an injustice, the Board majority recommends the EPR
be  voided  and  the   applicant   afforded   supplemental   promotion
consideration for cycle 00E9.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT:

The pertinent military records of the Department of  the  Air  Force
relating to APPLICANT, be corrected to show that the Senior Enlisted
Performance Report, AF Form 911, rendered for the  period  10  April
1999 through 1 November 1999, be declared void and removed from  his
records.

It  is  further  recommended  that  he  be   provided   supplemental
consideration for promotion to the grade of  chief  master  sergeant
for all appropriate cycles beginning with cycle 00E9.

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 individual  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 on the date of rank  established  by  the  supplemental
promotion and that he  is  entitled  to  all  pay,  allowances,  and
benefits of such grade as of that date.

_________________________________________________________________

The following members of the  Board  considered  this  application  in
Executive Session on 15 August 2001, under the provisions of  AFI  36-
2603:

                  Ms. Charlene M. Bradley, Panel Chair
                  Mr. Michael V. Barbino, Member
                  Ms. Mary C. Johnson, Member

A majority of the Board voted to correct the records, as  recommended.
Mr. Barbino voted to deny the application; however, he does  not  wish
to submit a Minority Report. The following  documentary  evidence  was
considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 17 May 01, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPPWB, dated 31 May 01, w/atch.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPPEP, dated 29 Jun 01.
   Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 29 Jun 01.




                                   CHARLENE M. BRADLEY
                                   Panel Chair


AFBCMR 01-01423


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
Senior Enlisted Performance Report, AF Form 911, rendered for the
period 10 April 1999 through 1 November 1999, 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 chief master sergeant for
all appropriate cycles beginning with cycle 00E9.

      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 individual 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 on the date of rank 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