RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  01-02332
                       INDEX CODE:  111.02

      APPLICANT  COUNSEL:  None

      SSN        HEARING DESIRED:  Yes

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

The Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) covering the rating period 2 Jun
97 through 1 Jun 98 be corrected or removed from her records.  She  is
also requesting retroactive promotion to E-6, appropriate back pay and
allowances and any other such relief the Board deems appropriate.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The EPR was not an accurate assessment of her work performance for the
rating period in question.  She  was  performing  the  same  identical
duties but at an increased level than the  previous  year  because  of
manning issues.

Upon receipt of the downgraded EPR, she questioned her rater as to why
her rating was lowered from the previous year.  His response was  that
training was an issue and he felt that  she  was  not  performing  her
duties at the level he thought she was capable of performing.

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's EPR profile reflects the following:

                 PERIOD ENDING               OVERALL EVALUATION

                    1 Jun 95                       5
                    1 Jun 96                       5
                    1 Jun 97                       5
                   *1 Jun 98                       4
                    1 Jun 99                       5
                    1 Jun 00                       5
                    1 Jun 01                       5

* Contested report.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPPWB stated the applicant's EPR was considered in the promotion
process for cycle 00E6 to technical sergeant.  Further  if  the  Board
voids the EPR  in  its  entirety,  or  upgrades  the  overall  rating,
providing the applicant is otherwise eligible, the applicant would  be
entitled to supplemental consideration beginning with the 00E6  cycle.
The applicant would not be a select for the 00E6 cycle if the  request
is granted, but she would become a select  for  01E6  promotion  cycle
pending  favorable  data  verification  and  recommendation   of   the
commander (Exhibit C).

AFPC/DPPPEP states that  the  applicant  received  a  "5"  rating  the
previous year by the same rater, however, that does not  have  bearing
on the rating she received the following year.  The EPR evaluates  the
performance during a specified period and  reflects  the  performance,
conduct and potential of the member at that time,  in  that  position.
The applicant was unable to maintain the same performance level due to
the workload increase in the office.  The is confirmed by the position
paper that SSgt F. prepared requesting that the applicant be  replaced
by SSgt R.

The applicant contends that  the  EPR  is  unjust  because  her  rater
downgraded the report due to  training,  which  the  rater  failed  to
provide.  But, in her "Background on 1 Jun 98 EPR" she states  "During
this reporting period, training was never held to his satisfaction.  I
did the best I could…we all worked  very  hard…but  it  was  simply  a
situation where we did not have the resources to  do  everything  that
needed to be done."  The applicant is saying that the training was her
responsibility and her supervisor was not pleased with the quality  of
her training, thus contradicting her contention that training was  the
supervisor's responsibility.

The additional rater feels that after discussing the report  with  the
applicant, her supervisor, his predecessor and  other  senior  leaders
and, after having another opportunity to supervise the applicant,  the
report should be upgraded to a  "5"  rating.   However,  retrospective
statements from evaluators prepared years after a  report  has  closed
out, following period of improved performance, does not carry as  much
weight as assessments made when the facts and circumstances were fresh
in their minds.

Air Force policy is that an evaluation report is accurate  as  written
when it becomes a matter of record.  The evidence  the  applicant  has
provided does not support the assertion that the EPR is  erroneous  or
unjust.  The  documents  submitted  in  support  of  her  request  are
commendable, but these individuals were not in a  position  to  assess
the applicant's entire duty  performance.   Therefore,  based  on  the
evidence submitted they recommend denying the applicant’s request.

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

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant reviewed  the  Air  Force  evaluations  and  states  she
concurs with the recommendation of DPPPWB.

The evaluation prepared by DPPPEP concedes that her request is  timely
and that the workload in her office tripled, but after this point  she
feels it is a negative boilerplate response.  The assertion  that  she
contradicted herself is not true; it  is  the  responsibility  of  the
supervisor  to  train  the  people  he  supervises.   Her   supervisor
essentially admits this in his  position  paper  and  the  performance
feedback worksheet.  She feels with  the  increased  workload  of  the
office that her supervisor was  frustrated;  but  why  should  she  be
punished with a downgraded EPR when she  was  doing  more  than  three
times as much work.  She states that DPPPEP gives more credibility  to
her supervisor rather than the  indorsing  official  (who  is  general
officer equivalent) and to Chief Master  Sergeants,  as  well  as  the
evidence she submitted.  She further states that  she  has  been  very
careful not to launch a  personal  attack  on  SSgt  F.,  but  he  was
overworked and just as stressed as the rest of the  office.   She  has
submitted evidence to show that the situation was difficult and it  is
unfair that she paid the price for a situation  that  was  beyond  her
control.  She requests the Board grant her application and put her  in
the position she would have gotten if she had received an accurate "5"
rating (Exhibit F).

_________________________________________________________________

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  the  contested  report  is  not  an  accurate
assessment of her performance during the period in question.  In  this
respect, we note the statement submitted  from  the  indorser  on  the
contested report that reveals that the rater  believed  that  training
was a central issue in regard to his  assessment  of  the  applicant's
performance.  However, the training deficiency was attributable to the
rater and should not have been a factor in the rater's assessment.  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 her records and she be  provided  supplemental  promotion
consideration.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD DETERMINES 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  Jun  97
through 1 Jun 98, be declared void and removed from her records.

It is further directed that the  applicant  be  provided  supplemental
consideration for promotion to the grade of technical sergeant for all
appropriate cycles beginning with cycle 00E6.

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 applicant was promoted to  the
higher grade on the date  of  rank  established  by  the  supplemental
promotion and that applicant 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 28 November 2001, under the provisions of AFI 36-
2603.

            Mr. Terry A. Yonkers, Panel Chair
            Mr. Michael V. Barbino, Member
            Mr. Michael K. Gallogly, Member

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

      Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 30 Jun 01, w/atchs.
      Exhibit B. Applicant's Enlisted Performance Reports.
      Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPPPWB, dated 24 Sep 01.
      Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/DPPPEP, dated 1 Oct 01.
      Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 5 Oct 01.
      Exhibit F. Applicant's Response, dated 17 Oct 01.




                       TERRY A. YONKERS
                       Panel Chair