RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBERS:  01-02507
            INDEX CODE 111.02 111.03 111.05
            COUNSEL:  None

            HEARING DESIRED:  Not Indicated

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

The Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) closing 12 May  99  be  declared
void and removed from his records

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

His evaluators were biased against him  during  the  reporting  period
because of accusations of violating a lawful general  regulation,  for
which a special  court-martial  found  him  not  guilty.  The  initial
feedback date on the EPR in question is  falsified;  the  comments  in
Sections V and VI are inconsistent with markings in Section  III.   He
filed a complaint with the Inspector General (IG), who would  not  get
involved due to the fact he was under a judicial  investigation.   The
evaluators refused to respond when he asked for statements.

The applicant provides a copy of his appeal package submitted  to  the
Evaluation Reports Appeal Board (ERAB). His complete submission is  at
Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant is currently serving on active  duty  in  the  grade  of
technical sergeant (date of rank: 1 Feb 99). He filed a similar appeal
under the provisions of AFR 31-11/AFI 36-2401,  which  was  considered
and denied by the ERAB on 5 Sep 00.

The overall ratings of his EPRs from 12 Dec 93 to 21 Feb 01 are: 4, 5,
5, 4, 5, 5, 5, 4 (contested EPR), 5 and 5.

The remaining  relevant  facts  pertaining  to  this  application  are
contained in  the  official  documents  provided  in  the  applicant’s
submission (Exhibit A) and in the letters prepared by the  appropriate
offices of the Air Force (Exhibits B and C).
_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

HQ AFPC/DPPPWB notes that  should  the  Board  void  the  report,  the
applicant would be entitled to supplemental promotion consideration to
master  sergeant  for  the  01E7  cycle,  providing  he  is  otherwise
eligible. However, he would not be selected as his total  score  would
increase to 315.40 and the score required for  selection  in  his  Air
Force Specialty Code is 317.41.

A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit B.

HQ AFPC/DPPPEP indicates that, due to the investigation and subsequent
loss of his line badge, the applicant was unable to perform his normal
duties. Therefore, he was appropriately detailed around the base where
he could be utilized as a viable Air Force asset.  This does not prove
the evaluators were biased.  Many individuals have to  perform  duties
without the benefit of direct daily supervision. There is  nothing  to
indicate the rater  did  not  obtain  meaningful  information  on  the
applicant’s  duty  performance  from  as  many  reliable  sources   as
possible. Additionally, the applicant did not prove only one  feedback
session occurred. He has not provided  convincing  evidence  that  the
evaluators were biased and unable to render an accurate assessment  or
that the report itself is erroneous.  Denial is recommended.

A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant asserts he posed no security threat and asks  why  would
he be assigned to another fighter  squadron  after  the  acquittal  by
court-martial, performing the same job with no line badge for the next
six months. He was subjected to public and  professional  humiliation,
being on display in front of  his  colleagues  and  subordinates.  His
rater failed to obtain meaningful information on his duty performance.
His supervisor was on temporary duty (TDY) during the month of Nov 98,
on leave during the month of Dec 98, and TDY from Feb 99  through  Jun
99.  The majority of evaluators will not put their career on the  line
stating they violated an Air Force Instruction. People and the  system
are not perfect, and common sense and the ability to read between  the
lines are needed.

A complete copy of applicant’s response is at Exhibit E.

_________________________________________________________________

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
applicant’s submittal and performance record, we are persuaded  that
the evaluators may have been  adversely  influenced  by  allegations
made against him during the period in question, and for which he was
subsequently found not guilty. While no rating chain statements were
provided, we  note  the  inconsistencies  between  the  comments  in
Sections V and VI and the rankings in Section III.  While we  cannot
determine absolutely  that  this  stemmed  from  biased,  inaccurate
assessments, we believe any possibility of doubt should be  resolved
in this applicant’s favor. We therefore recommend that the contested
EPR be declared void and removed from  his  records.   The  EPR  was
first considered in promotion cycle 01E7. However, since its removal
would  not  raise  the  applicant’s  total  score  for  this   cycle
sufficient for selection to master sergeant, we do not recommend  he
be afforded supplemental promotion consideration.

___________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT:

The pertinent military records of the Department of  the  Air  Force
relating to the APPLICANT, be corrected to show  that  the  Enlisted
Performance Report, AF Form 910, rendered for the period 13  May  98
through 12 May 99 be declared void and removed from his records.

___________________________________________________________________

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

                 Mr. Henry Romo Jr., Panel Chair
                 Mr. Clyde L. Williams, Member
                 Ms. Ann-Cecile McDermott, Member

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

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 7 Aug 01, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPPWB, dated 10 Sep 01.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPPEP, dated 20 Sep 01.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 5 Oct 01.
   Exhibit E.  Letter, Applicant, dated 12 Oct 01.




                                   HENRY ROMO JR.
                                   Panel Chair



AFBCMR 01-02507




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 13
May 1998 through 12 May 1999 be, and hereby is, declared void and
removed from his records.





   JOE G. LINEBERGER

   Director

   Air Force Review Boards Agency