RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  01-02367

            INDEX CODE:  111.00


            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  YES


_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

The  Enlisted  Performance  Report  (EPR),  rendered  for  the  period
23 September 1997 through 20 August 1998, be removed from his  records
and he be provided supplemental promotion consideration to  the  grade
of senior master sergeant (E-8) for the 99E8 promotion cycle.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

There are several problems with the report.  The  report  should  have
closed out on 1 July 1998, the date his rating official  resigned  his
position as Chief, Faculty Development Branch.  He was  his  reporting
official during the previous nine months and had completed the  report
prior to  his  resignation  and  had  forwarded  it  to  the  squadron
commander.  Rather than closing out the report, the commander  removed
the rater’s name from the reporting official block, assumed the duties
of his reporting official, and submitted the report as if he had  been
his (applicant’s) supervisor for the previous 332 days.  He was  aware
of his pending PCS and knew he would serve as his rater for less  than
60 days.  The AFI mandates a period of supervision of no less than 120
days before an EPR can be accomplished prior to a PCS.   The  previous
rater completed his feedback worksheet during the mid-term session  on
16 June 1998.  This is  the  feedback  session  the  subsequent  rater
referred to as his initial feedback session in Block V on the  EPR  in
question.  He did not provide the feedback yet he  listed  it  in  the
report.  To establish a timeline for supervision, consider the date of
the feedback, 16 June 1998, and the date on his paid  travel  voucher,
14 August 1998.  The previous rater actually left  his  post  and  the
subsequent rater assumed responsibilities as his rater on 1 July 1998.
 These documents indicate the maximum number of  days  he  could  have
been supervised by the subsequent rater.  Even though supervision  was
less than 60 days, there is no statement in Section  V  that  explains
what happened to the previous rater.

The report was submitted without a  mark  in  the  promotion  eligible
block indicating his eligibility.  When the promotion  board  reviewed
the report in February 1999, this mistake was uncorrected although  he
had requested a correction from the commander.  At some point  between
May 1999 and December 2000, someone marked the promotion block on  the
report.

The actual performance feedback date in Section  V  of  the  contested
report indicates the subsequent rater performed an initial feedback on
16 June 1998.  The feedback session was conducted on that date but  it
was between the previous rater and him.  The new rater made no  effort
to provide a feedback session although the AFI directs one when  there
is a change of raters.  The reason listed for the report is Change  of
Rating Official (CRO).  Their only meeting took place just days before
his PCS when the rater  congratulated  him  on  his  performance.   He
showed him a copy of the final draft of  the  EPR.   All  blocks  were
filled, including the senior rater’s comments.

In the Fall of 1998, he discovered the  senior  rater’s  comments  had
been removed; the EPR was closed out  at  the  senior  rater’s  deputy
level; and the promotion eligible block was left unmarked.  The  rater
told him that the wing had a new policy requiring  the  completion  of
the SNCO Academy correspondence course before  they  would  allow  the
wing commander’s signature.  Since he had left Lackland AFB and no one
conveyed the reasons why he had not finished the course prior  to  the
PCS, the report was changed and  closed  out  at  the  senior  rater’s
deputy level.  They discussed the reasons  the  course  had  not  been
completed and the rater said he would send the report back to the wing
with justification to have the report corrected.  The corrections were
never made and the original report was placed in his record  prior  to
the board in February 1999.  He has since learned that  the  rater  is
unwilling to support a correction and he realized that the  rater  had
not discussed the issue of correcting the EPR with the group  or  wing
commander prior to his PCS.  The rater completely changed his position
and acted as if this  new  position  had  been  his  policy  from  the
beginning.  He cites two incidents that occurred  just  prior  to  his
PCS, which he believes have  bearing  on  the  rater’s  actions.   One
involved the rater allowing  a  student  to  self-eliminate  from  the
Military Training Instructors School (MTIS) against his recommendation
and the other concerned the selection of a new commandant for the  MTI
school.

The EPR has damaged his promotion opportunity without  an  explanation
of the circumstances.  He asks the Board to review his accomplishments
and judge their magnitude against the level of  support  afforded  the
report.

In support, the applicant  provided  a  copy  of  his  appeal  package
submitted to the Evaluation Reports Appeal Board (ERAB), copies of his
16 June 1998 Performance  Feedback  Worksheet  (PFW),  copies  of  the
contested report, and a copy of his travel voucher,  dated  31  August
1998.

The applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant is currently serving on active  duty  in  the  grade  of
master sergeant (E-7), with a Date of Rank (DOR) of 1 June 1995.   His
Total Active Federal Military Service Date (TAFMSD) is 23 July 1981.

The applicant’s  EPR  profile  for  the  last  ten  reporting  periods
follows:

            PERIOD ENDING               OVERALL EVALUATION


                 12 Jun 92                                    5

                  7 Feb 93                                    5
                  7 Feb 94                                    5
                  7 Feb 95                                    5
                  7 Feb 96                                    5
                 22 Sep 96                                    5
                 22 Sep 97                                    5
               * 20 Aug 98                                    5
                 30 Sep 99                                    5
                 30 Sep 00                                    5

*  Contested Report

The applicant appealed the contested report under  the  provisions  of
AFI 36-2401, Correcting Officer and Enlisted Evaluation Reports.   The
Evaluation Reports Appeal  Board  (ERAB)  denied  the  application  in
September 2000.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS:

HQ  AFPC/DPPPWB  recommended  denial.   They  stated  that  the  first
promotion cycle the EPR was considered in the  promotion  process  was
cycle 99E8 (promotions effective 1 April 1999 - 1 March  2000).   They
do not believe that the possibility that the  report  was  not  marked
that he was TIG eligible was  significant  when  the  99E8  Evaluation
Board considered him for promotion to senior  master  sergeant  (E-8).
He has a DOR to E-7 of 1 June 1995.  He had been considered  for  both
the 97E8 and 98E8 cycles.  His three previous EPRs closing  7 February
1996, 22 September 1996, and 22 September 1997, indicate  he  was  TIG
eligible for E-8.  Even if the EPR was not  marked  that  he  was  TIG
eligible, the Evaluation Board was well aware of this  fact  when  the
EPR  was  reviewed.   In  their  view,  this  possible  omission   had
absolutely no impact on  his  board  score.   However,  if  the  Board
recommends removing the report, the  applicant  will  be  entitled  to
supplemental promotion consideration beginning with  the  99E8  cycle,
provided he is recommended by the commander and is otherwise eligible.


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

HQ AFPC/DPPPE recommended denial, stating that it is inappropriate  to
void a report due to a minor administrative correction.   Section  IX,
Time-in-Grade Eligible, is marked on  the  report  closing  20  August
1998, which is filed in his Senior NCO (SNCO) folder.  In the  opinion
of AFPC/DPPPE, the allegation that a  personality  conflict  prevented
the rater from writing a fair and accurate assessment and ensuring the
report was indorsed at the appropriate level is not substantiated.

Regarding senior rater endorsement, it was the wing commander’s policy
that he only gave his endorsement when members complete  SNCO  Academy
by correspondence.  The applicant, despite his previous  achievements,
did not meet this standard.  The wing commander indicated he would  be
willing to give the applicant a senior rater endorsement if there  was
rating chain  support.   The  rater,  who  was  also  the  applicant’s
squadron  commander,  stated  he  would  not   support   the   change.
Therefore, regardless of who should have written  the  report,  senior
rater endorsement would not have  been  given.   AFPC/DPPPE  concluded
that the applicant did not provide convincing evidence the report  was
written by anyone other than the designated rater or  that  the  rater
was biased due to a personality conflict.

A complete copy of the evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant reiterated his contention that the authorized  rater  of
the report accomplished the EPR with senior rater  endorsement;  while
the individual who rated him was unauthorized to rate him by the  AFI,
but assumed the position of his rater and altered the report  so  that
it did not reflect  the  authorized  rater’s  intent.   His  immediate
supervisor during the rating period assumed the position of  Chief  of
Faculty Development in the Fall of 1998.  He continued  as  his  rater
until the beginning of July 1999, when  he  resigned.   Prior  to  his
resignation, he gave the squadron commander/rater’s rater  a  copy  of
the EPR he had written, including the senior endorser’s comments.

The squadron commander/rater’s rater  decided  to  become  his  rating
official upon the resignation of the Chief of Faculty Development.  He
served as his rater for less than 60 days.  He submitted the EPR as if
he had been his rater for 332 days.  The initial feedback  session  on
16 June 1998, was conducted by the previous rater.  The EPR  indicates
the rater did not have time to perform a  mid-term  feedback  session.
If he was his supervisor for 332 days, he would have had ample time to
conduct the session.

The very thing  he  is  contesting,  that  the  authorized  rater  was
inappropriately removed from the  rating  chain,  is  serving  as  the
justification for not considering his input in the appeal.

While the omission of the check mark indicating  his  eligibility  for
promotion may not, in and  or  itself,  warrant  voiding  the  report,
considering the other inaccuracies, it speaks to the validity  of  the
whole EPR as an accurate, truthful reflection of his  performance  and
promotion status.

The applicant’s complete response is at 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 warranting corrective action.
 After careful consideration of the evidence provided, it appears that
the applicant suffered an injustice because the rater did not have the
60 days of supervision required to render a change of rating  official
(CRO) evaluation report.  In this regard,  documentation  provided  by
the applicant shows that his performance feedback was accomplished  by
the previous rater on 16 June 1998; and the applicant PCSed to  a  new
duty station on 14 August 1998.  Therefore, the rater could only  have
supervised the applicant for approximately 58 days.  In  view  of  the
foregoing, we believe the contested report should be declared void and
removed  from  his  records.   In  addition,  we  recommend  that  his
corrected record be considered for promotion to the  grade  of  senior
master sergeant for all  cycles  beginning  with  the  99E8  promotion
cycle.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT:

The pertinent military records of the  Department  of  the  Air  Force
relating to APPLICANT, be corrected to show  that  the  AF  Form  911,
Senior Enlisted Performance Report (MSgt thru CMSgt), rendered for the
period 23 September 1997 through 20 August 1998, be declared void  and
removed from his record.

It  is  further  recommended  that   he   be   provided   supplemental
consideration for promotion to the grade of senior master sergeant (E-
8) for all appropriate cycles beginning with cycle 99E8.

If selected for promotion to the grade of senior  master  sergeant  by
supplemental consideration, he be provided any additional supplemental
consideration required as a result of that selection, if applicable.

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 qualifications 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 13 November 2001, under the provisions of AFI 36-
2603:

                 Mr. Thomas S. Markiewicz, Vice Chair
                 Ms. Carolyn B. Willis, Member
                 Mr. Philip Sheuerman, Member

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

     Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 14 Aug 2001, w/atchs.
     Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
     Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPWB, dated 30 Aug 2001, w/atchs.
     Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPE, dated 18 Sep 2001, w/atchs.
     Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 28 Sep 2001.
     Exhibit F.  Letter, Applicant, dated 24 Oct 2001.




                                   THOMAS S. MARKIEWICZ
                                   Vice Chair



AFBCMR 01-02367


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 AF Form 911, Senior
Enlisted Performance Report (MSgt thru CMSgt), rendered for the period
23 September 1997 through 20 August 1998, be, and hereby is, declared
void and removed from his record.

      It is further directed that he be provided supplemental
consideration for promotion to the grade of senior master sergeant (E-
8) for all appropriate cycles beginning with cycle 99E8.

      If selected for promotion to the grade of senior master sergeant
by supplemental consideration, he be provided any additional
supplemental consideration required as a result of that selection, if
applicable.

      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 qualifications 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