RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBERS:  02-00858
                             INDEX CODE 111.02  111.05
                             COUNSEL:  None

                             HEARING DESIRED: Yes

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

The Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) for the period closing 31 Jul 99
be voided from his records.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The EPR was given unjustly and did not coincide with  the  performance
feedback he received from his supervisor.  The  Air  Force  system  of
dealing with these types of discrepancies does not give  the  ratee  a
fair opportunity to appeal. The system is designed to force the  rater
to admit that they made a mistake. In other words, the ratee is guilty
until proven innocent. He believes the report was driven by the biased
opinion of his unit commander and the supervisor did  not  go  against
her will for fear of personal retribution. Despite his attempts,  both
the supervisor (rater) and the  commander  (indorser)  indicated  they
would not admit their  wrongdoings  by  supporting  his  request.   He
provides a supporting statement from  his  former  military  personnel
flight (MPF) chief.

The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is  at  Exhibit
A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant is currently serving in the grade  of  master  sergeant,
with a date of rank (DOR) of 1 Aug 99.  During the period in question,
he  was  the  NCOIC,  Base  Information  Management,  assigned  to   a
classified location. With the exception of the contested EPR,  all  of
his performance reports from 1  Apr  91  through  19  Feb  01  reflect
overall ratings of “5” and the performance factors are, for  the  most
part, “firewalled.”  The contested EPR has an overall  rating  of  “3”
and he was marked down in 5 out 7 performance factors.

The EPR which followed the contested report and closed on  19  Feb  00
has an overall  rating  of  “5”  and  different  evaluators,  but  the
commander who indicated her  concurrence  in  Section  X,  Commander’s
Review, was also the indorser on the contested report.

The applicant twice appealed the contested report under the provisions
of AFR 31-11/AFI 36-2401. The Evaluation Reports Appeal  Board  (ERAB)
returned the appeal without action on 9 Apr 01 and denied it on 10 Jan
02. The ERAB indicated that the applicant needed to provide supporting
statements from his original rating chain or from individuals  in  the
rating chain who were higher than the commander.

The contested EPR was  considered  in  promotion  cycle  02E8  (senior
master sergeant).

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

HQ AFPC/DPPPE asserts  that  a  direct  correlation  between  feedback
sessions and the assessment on evaluation reports does not necessarily
exist.  If after a positive feedback session  an  evaluator  discovers
serious problems, the problems must  be  recorded  in  the  evaluation
report  even  when  it  disagrees  with  the  previous  feedback.  The
statement  from  the  retired  chief  master  sergeant  lists  several
incidents the applicant was involved in; however, he does not state if
they were before or after the feedback was accomplished.  In  support,
the applicant could have provided statements from other individuals in
the rating chain or an inspector general  (IG)  or  equal  opportunity
summary of investigation. The retired chief was not in the applicant’s
rating chain and may not have been informed of all the details of  the
situation. The applicant  did  not  provide  convincing  evidence  the
commander was biased or that she violated the  rater’s  rating  rights
through coercion. Denial is recommended.

A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A complete copy of the Air  Force  evaluation  was  forwarded  to  the
applicant on 17 May 22 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 error or injustice. After carefully  considering  the
applicant’s submission and his performance history, a majority of  the
Board is persuaded that the 31 Jul 99 EPR should be voided.   We  note
the applicant did not provide rating chain support; however, the Board
majority concedes the difficulty in obtaining  an  admission  of  bias
from the very individual(s) who may have committed the biased act.  We
agree with the Air Force that problems which develop after a  feedback
session can and should be recorded on the performance report. However,
based on the supporting statement from the former MPF  chief  and  the
superior ratings the applicant has  received  before  and  since,  the
majority of  the  Board  believes  the  possibility  exists  that  the
contested EPR may be flawed. In this regard, the incidents  the  chief
refers to in his statement did not establish that  the  applicant  was
guilty of wrongdoing and apparently the commander was unable to make a
case against him. This seems further buttressed by the fact  that  the
same commander who indorsed  the  contested  report  concurred  in  an
overall “5” rating on the  subsequent  EPR  about  six  months  later.
Therefore, in order to offset the possibility  of  an  injustice,  the
Board majority concludes that any doubt should  be  resolved  in  this
applicant’s favor by voiding the 31 Jul 99 EPR from  his  records  and
granting him 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 August
1998 through 31 July 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 senior  master  sergeant
for all appropriate cycles beginning with cycle 02E8.

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 6 August 2002 under the  provisions  of  AFI  36-
2603:

                                  Mr. Michael K. Gallogly, Panel Chair
                                  Mr. Billy C. Baxter, Member
                                  Mr. James W. Russell, Member

By a majority  vote,  the  Board  voted  to  correct  the  records  as
recommended. Mr. Russell voted to deny the appeal but does not wish to
submit a Minority Report. The following documentary evidence  relating
to AFBCMR Docket Number 02-00858 was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 1 Mar 02, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPPE, dated 16 Apr 02.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 17 May 02




                                   MICHAEL K. GALLOGLY
                                   Panel Chair




AFBCMR 02-00858




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 August 1998 through 31 July 1999, be, and hereby is, declared void
and removed from his records.

            It is further recommended that he be provided supplemental
consideration for promotion to the grade of senior master sergeant for
all appropriate cycles beginning with cycle 02E8.

            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