RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBERS:  01-00019
            INDEX CODE 111.02 111.03 111.05
            COUNSEL:  None

            HEARING DESIRED:  No

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

The referral Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) closing 30  Apr  96  be
declared void and removed from her record.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The report did  not  reflect  her  performance  during  the  reporting
period.  Her  indorser  continually  praised  her  performance  as   a
recruiter. However, in Oct 95 when she  decided  not  to  continue  in
recruiting, he turned against her despite  her  maintaining  the  same
level of performance.  Her performance  feedback  session  in  Jul  95
indicated she needed little or  no  improvement.  This  was  the  only
feedback she  received  during  this  period.  Her  signature  on  the
computer printout indicating she had another feedback session  in  Nov
95 was forged. Her rater originally gave her an overall rating of  “4”
but, after meeting with the indorser, reduced it to a “2” and  changed
the evaluation of performance in Section III.   After  the  rater  and
indorser left and she returned  to  her  previous  career  field,  she
received a “firewalled” report in Sep 96. The same squadron  commander
signed both reports. She did not appeal the 30 Apr 96 EPR at the  time
because she was afraid it would end her career.

The rater, the squadron commander,  and  a  master  sergeant  who  was
assigned to the same  squadron  provide  supporting  statements.  Also
provided is a copy of the EPR signed by only the rater on 30  Apr  96.
It has an overall rating of “4” and a negative comment in Section V.

The complete appeal package is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant is currently serving in the regular  Air  Force  in  the
grade of staff sergeant (date of rank: 1 Aug 90).  She was assigned to
Recruiting Service on 5 Oct 92.  During the period  in  question,  she
was a recruiter assigned to the 337th Recruiting Squadron at  Sumpter,
SC.

On 10 Oct 95, the applicant was evaluated at the three-year point  for
retention in Recruiting Service  for  an  additional  two  years.  The
applicant opted to be returned to her Primary Air Force Specialty Code
(PAFSC) at the end of her fourth  year.   On  12  Oct  95,  the  rater
recommended the applicant for retention; however, on 16  Oct  95,  the
indorser did not.

On 13 Feb 96, the applicant was notified of the  squadron  commander's
intent to impose  nonjudicial  punishment  upon  her  for  negligently
failing to follow established squadron and flight supervisor  policies
to validate monthly applicant qualifications from about 1  Oct  95  to
about 27 Dec 95, and knowingly making a false statement  to  [the  EPR
indorser] that she  had  conducted  a  final  “entering  active  duty”
briefing with an applicant on 13 Dec 95. On 6 Feb 96, after consulting
with counsel, applicant waived her right to a trial by  court-martial,
requested a personal appearance and submitted a written  presentation.
On 13 Feb 96, her squadron commander  found  her  guilty  and  imposed
punishment in the form of forfeiture of $100.00 in pay and a reduction
to senior airman suspended until 12 Aug 96.  Applicant did not  appeal
the  punishment.   The  Article  15  was  filed  in  her   Unfavorable
Information File (UIF).

The contested report was referred to the applicant on 13 May  96.  The
overall rating was “2” and Section III indicated she was  unacceptable
in the “Conduct On/Off Duty” performance factor and ineffective in the
“Supervise/Lead” performance factor. Also, sections V and VI contained
negative comments. She provided a rebuttal on 30 May 96.

Except for the contested report and a 2 Dec 91 EPR having  an  overall
rating of “4,” all of the applicant’s performance reports since Dec 90
have had overall ratings of “5.”

Since the Article 15’s suspended reduction expired on 12 Aug 96, prior
to the  31  Dec  96  Promotion  Eligibility  Cutoff  Date  (PECD)  for
promotion cycle 97E6, the Article 15 did not  affect  the  applicant’s
eligibility for promotion consideration to technical sergeant for that
cycle.  However, she was not selected.

The applicant filed three similar appeals under the provisions of  AFI
36-2401.  The  Evaluation  Reports  Appeal  Board  (ERAB)  denied  her
requests on 8 Oct 99, 4 Oct 00 and 8 Nov 00.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

HQ AFPC/DPPPWB advises that the first time the  contested  report  was
considered in the promotion process was for cycle 97E6.  If the report
is voided, the applicant would be entitled to  supplemental  promotion
consideration beginning with cycle 97E6,  provided  she  is  otherwise
eligible.  However, she would not become a selectee until cycle 99E6.

A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit C.

HQ  AFPC/DPPPEP  reviewed  the  appeal  and  provided  rationale   for
recommending denial.  The applicant  received  nonjudicial  punishment
during the reporting period for two violations of the UCMJ. The author
finds it strange that neither of her evaluators  bothered  to  address
the violations, or her receipt of the Article 15 in their  statements.
While she may believe the Article 15  and  the  referral  EPR  were  a
result of her decision  to  leave  recruiting,  she  did  not  provide
official documentation proving coercion or reprisal occurred.

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

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Complete copies of the Air Force evaluations  were  forwarded  to  the
applicant on 2 Mar 01 for review and comment within 30  days.   On  13
Apr 01, the applicant requested that her case be temporarily withdrawn
so that she could prepare a response. By letter dated 17 Apr  01,  the
AFBCMR  Staff  advised  the  applicant  that   her   case   had   been
administratively closed in accordance with her request.  On 18 Dec 01,
the applicant requested that her case be reopened and presented to the
Board;  however,  she  did  not  submit  any  additional  comments  or
documentation.

The applicant's facsimiles are 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 to  warrant  voiding  the
referral EPR. The Board majority did note the Article 15 the applicant
received during the reporting period and the fact that the  supporting
statements did not refer to it.  However, we are disturbed by the  Air
Force's rather cavalier dismissal of the  applicant's  assertion  that
her signature on the  feedback  notification  was  forged.  The  Board
majority  is  persuaded  that  the  signature  is  not  hers  and  the
possibility exists that she did not, in fact, receive feedback.  While
lack of feedback, in and of itself, does not normally warrant  voiding
a performance report, the majority believes the circumstances of  this
case, taken in their entirety, support resolving any doubt  in  behalf
of  the  applicant.   The  referral  report  is  an  anomaly  in   her
performance history and we have no basis to question the integrity  of
the rater and the squadron commander  when  they  assert  that  it  is
inaccurate and should be voided. Therefore, the majority of the  Board
recommends that the report be voided and  the  applicant  be  afforded
supplemental promotion consideration.

_________________________________________________________________

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 1 May  1995
through 30 April  1996,  be  declared  void  and  removed  from  her
records.

It  is  further  recommended  that  she  be  provided   supplemental
consideration for promotion to the grade of technical  sergeant  for
all appropriate cycles beginning with cycle 97E6.

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 she was promoted to the higher
grade on the date of rank established by  the  supplemental  promotion
and that she 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 16 January 2002, under the provisions of AFI  36-
2603:

                 Mr. Jackson A. Hauslein Jr., Panel Chair
                 Ms. Marilyn Thomas, Member
                 Ms. Barbara J. White-Olson, Member

The  majority  of  the  Board  voted  to  correct  the   records,   as
recommended. Ms. Thomas voted to deny the appeal, but does not wish to
submit a Minority  Report.  The  following  documentary  evidence  was
considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 28 Dec 00, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPPWB, dated 18 Jan 01.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPPEP, dated 14 Feb 01.
   Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 2 Mar 01.
   Exhibit F.  Facsimiles, Applicant, dated 13 Apr & 18 Dec 01.




                                   JACKSON A. HAUSLEIN JR.
                                   Panel Chair



AFBCMR 01-00019




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 1
May 1995 through 30 April 1996, be, and hereby is, declared void and
removed from her records.

      It is further directed that she be provided supplemental
consideration for promotion to the grade of technical sergeant for
all appropriate cycles beginning with cycle 97E6.

      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 she was
promoted to the higher grade on the date of rank established by the
supplemental promotion and that she is entitled to all pay,
allowances, and benefits of such grade as of that date.







   JOE G. LINEBERGER

   Director

   Air Force Review Boards Agency