RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  02-01114
            INDEX CODE:  111.05
            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  YES

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His Enlisted Performance Reports (EPRs) rendered for the periods 20  Apr  97
through 4 Jan 98 and 5 Jan 98  through  4  Jan  99,  be  declared  void  and
removed from his records.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The EPRs do not  accurately  portray  his  actual  performance  and  do  not
capture any of his accomplishments.  Instead they  are  a  reflection  of  a
personality conflict that  existed  between  him  and  his  supervisor.   In
comparison, his EPRs rendered prior to and after these reports validate  his
performance factors as compared to  his  supervisor's  standards.   When  he
arrived on station there was an immediate personality conflict  between  him
and TSgt O---.  He noticed the problem prior to TSgt  O---  being  appointed
as his supervisor and voiced his concerns to the flight chief.  In spite  of
his concerns, he  was  still  appointed  as  his  supervisor.   His  initial
feedback session centered on negative reinforcement  and  comments  that  he
felt were  inappropriate.   During  the  feedback  session,  his  supervisor
focused more on his personality traits rather than his job  performance  and
even noted his mispronunciation of words and his slight stutter.

TSgt O---  was  removed  as  his  supervisor  in  November  1997.   His  new
supervisor, 2Lt M---, provided him a feedback  session  that  indicated  his
performance was well above standards.  In March  1998,  2Lt  M---  requested
bullets for his next EPR.  He was  briefed  that  TSgt  O---  would  not  be
writing  the  EPR  because  of  the  tensions  that  existed  between  them.
However, his EPR was backdated to 4 Jan 98 and  was  written  by  TSgt  O---
with an overall rating of "3."  He addressed the problems with his chain-of-
command but received no help.  The following year he spent the  majority  of
the time working in other areas, but he excelled  in  them  all.   When  his
next report was written he received an overall rating of "4" and  all  areas
were marked extremely low.  At no time did 2Lt M--- give him the  impression
that his work was substandard.  Applicant believes that his  report  written
by 2Lt M--- was the result of a perceived improper relationship between  him
and TSgt O---.

In support of his  request,  applicant  provided  a  personal  statement,  a
synopsis of the events, and documentation  associated  with  his  Evaluation
Reports  Appeal  Board  (ERAB)  appeal.   His  complete   submission,   with
attachments, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Data extracted from the personnel data system reflects  that  the  applicant
contracted his initial enlistment in the Regular Air Force  on  16  Aug  84.
He has been progressively promoted  to  the  grade  of  technical  sergeant,
having assumed that grade effective and with a date of rank of 1 Aug 01.

The following is a resume of the applicant's recent EPR profile.

            PERIOD ENDING         OVERALL EVALUATION

                 21 Nov 01              5
                 04 Jan 01              5
                 04 Jan 00              5
                 04 Jan 99*             4
                 04 Jan 98*             3
                 19 Apr 97              5
                 19 Apr 96              5
                 05 Nov 95              5

* - Contested reports
_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPPEP reviewed applicant’s  request  and  recommends  denial.   DPPPEP
states that the ERAB denied his appeal because he did not  provide  evidence
that shows a conflict  prevented  the  raters  from  preparing  a  fair  and
accurate report.  Personnel who do not perform as expected or require  close
supervision may believe that an evaluator  is  personally  biased;  however,
the conflict generated by this personal attention  is  usually  professional
rather than personal.  He provided a draft copy of the EPR which he  alleges
was going to be his EPR before the rater  was  influenced  by  his  previous
rater to revise and weaken the report.  The draft EPR  is  unsigned  and  is
not credible evidence to support his claim.  He also provided a  copy  of  a
feedback  form  that  is  not  signed  or  dated.   Further,  there  is   no
substantiated  evidence  to  point  to  his  allegation  that   his   speech
impediment further exacerbated his  rater’s  dislike  of  him.   The  DPPPEP
evaluation is at Exhibit B.

AFPC/DPPPWB reviewed applicant’s request and  states  that  provided  he  is
otherwise eligible, if the 4 Jan 98 EPR were  to  be  voided  he  would  not
become a selectee for the 99E6 promotion cycle.  However, he would become  a
selectee for the 00E6 promotion cycle.  Should the Board void the 4  Jan  99
EPR he would remain a nonselectee for  the  00E6  promotion  cycle.   Should
both EPRs be voided, he would become a selectee for the 00E6 cycle.  He  was
selected for promotion to the grade of technical sergeant  during  the  01E6
cycle and was promoted on 1 Aug 01.  The DPPPWB evaluation is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the  applicant  on  10
May 02 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 warranting voidance of  the  EPR  closing  4
January 1998 from his records.  In this respect, after  thorough  review  of
the evidence of record, we believe reasonable doubt has been established  as
to whether or not the performance report closing 4 January 1998, is  a  true
and accurate assessment of his performance during the  period  in  question.
Based on the evidence provided, in particular his  previous  and  subsequent
performance report history, it appears that a personality conflict may  have
existed between the applicant and his rater that hindered that  individual's
ability   to   objectively   assess   the   applicant's   performance.    In
consideration of all the circumstances involved it is our opinion  that  the
benefit of any doubt in  this  matter  should  be  resolved  in  his  favor.
Accordingly, we recommend that  his  records  be  corrected  to  the  extent
indicated below.

4.  However, in regard to the applicant's request to remove the  performance
report closing 4 January 1999, insufficient relevant has been  presented  to
demonstrate the existence of error  or  injustice  that  would  lead  us  to
believe this EPR is erroneous or  unjust.   The  applicant  has  established
that a possible conflict existed  between  himself  and  the  rater  on  the
report closing 4 January 1998.  However, we  are  not  persuaded  that  this
individual (rater) influenced the  evaluation  of  his  performance  on  the
report closing 4 January  1999.   It  appears  that  the  report  closing  4
January 1999 is an accurate assessment of his performance during the  period
in question.  Therefore, in  the  absence  of  persuasive  evidence  to  the
contrary,  we  find  no  compelling  basis  to  recommend  removal  of  this
particular EPR.

5.  The applicant's case is adequately documented and it has not been  shown
that a personal appearance with or without counsel will  materially  add  to
our understanding of the issue(s) involved.  Therefore, the  request  for  a
hearing is not favorably considered.

_________________________________________________________________

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 20 April 1997 through 4 January  1998,  be
declared void and removed from his records.

It is further recommended that he  be  provided  supplemental  consideration
for promotion to the grade of technical sergeant for all appropriate  cycles
beginning with cycle 99E6.

If  selected  for  promotion   to   technical   sergeant   by   supplemental
consideration, he be  provided  any  additional  supplemental  consideration
required as a result of that selection.

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  Docket  Number  02-01114  in
Executive Session on 27 Jun 02, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

      Mr. Albert F. Lowas, Jr., Panel Chair
      Mr. Laurence M. Groner, Member
      Ms. Kathleen F. Graham, Member

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

     Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 24 Mar 02, w/atchs.
     Exhibit B.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPEP, dated 3 May 02.
     Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPWB, dated 2 May 02.
     Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 10 May 02.




                                  ALBERT F. LOWAS, JR.
                                  Panel Chair

AFBCMR 02-01114




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 APPLICANT, be corrected to show that the Enlisted Performance
Report, AF Form 910, rendered for the period 20 April 1997 through 4
January 1998, be, and hereby is, declared void and removed from his
records.

      It is further directed that he be provided supplemental consideration
for promotion to the grade of technical sergeant for all appropriate cycles
beginning with cycle 99E6.

      If selected for promotion to technical sergeant by supplemental
consideration, he be provided any additional supplemental consideration
required as a result of that selection.

     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