RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  02-01667
            INDEX CODE:  111.02

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO


_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His Enlisted Performance Report (EPR), rendered for the  period  2 Feb
97 through 1 Feb 98, be replaced with the reaccomplished EPR provided;
and, that he be provided supplemental promotion consideration  to  the
grade of senior master sergeant (E-8) for cycle 00E8.
_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The contested report does not accurately assess his performance.   His
supervisor (SMSgt C---) was biased  and  unable  to  provide  accurate
information to the  rater.   In  addition,  the  contested  report  is
inconsistent with previous reports and it was late to file.

In support of his request, the applicant submits a personal statement,
the proposed EPR, a copy of the contested report, statements from  his
rating chain, and additional  documents  associated  with  the  issues
cited in his contentions.  The applicant’s complete  submission,  with
attachments, is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant’s Total Active Federal Military Service Date (TAFMSD) is
7 Jun 84.  He is currently serving on active duty.  At  the  time  the
applicant submitted this application, he was serving in the  grade  of
master sergeant.  He has subsequently been promoted to  the  grade  of
senior master sergeant, with an effective date and date of rank  of  1
Feb 02.  The following is a resume of his EPR  ratings  subsequent  to
his promotion to that grade.

Applicant's EPR profile for the last 5 reporting periods follows:

            Period Ending    Evaluation

             *  1 Feb 98     5 - Immediate Promotion (TSgt)
                1 Feb 99     5 - (MSgt)
                1 Feb 00     5
               29 Sep 00     5
                6 Jun 01     5

* Contested report

With the exception of  the  contested  report,  all  EPRs  since  1993
contain “firewall” ratings.

Similar appeals by the applicant, under Air Force Instruction (AFI) 36-
2401, were considered by the Evaluation Report  Appeal  Board  (ERAB).
On 18 Jun 01, the ERAB directed that the applicant’s 30 Mar 01  appeal
be returned without action because it was incomplete.  On  8  Mar  02,
the ERAB determined that the evidence submitted with the applicant’s 9
Jan 02 appeal did not warrant  changing  the  report;  therefore,  his
appeal was denied.
_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

HQ AFPC/DPPPEP recommends the application be  denied.   DPPPEP  stated
that the applicant cites the supervisor changing his duty title as  an
example of biased behavior.  Since there is no  instruction  governing
appropriate duty titles, they are usually left to  the  discretion  of
the rater.  A  simple  change  in  duty  titles  does  not  constitute
“personal jealousy.”  As to the rater’s statement of  support,  DPPPEP
stated that the rater did not cite specific examples of the  conflict,
the origin of the conflict  or  any  adverse  actions  caused  by  the
conflict.  DPPPEP indicated that the  noteworthy  accomplishments  the
applicant contends the supervisor failed to notify the  rater  of  are
actually documented on the report.  The  contested  report  identifies
the  deployment  and  several  accomplishments  from  the  Letter   of
Evaluation (LOE) she received.   The  “Pat  on  Back”  award  was  not
mentioned because the award is dated after the closeout of the report.
 Therefore, the rater was informed of the significant  accomplishments
and based  her  assessment  on  her  own  observations  prior  to  her
deployment.  DPPPEP stated that sometimes an individual  can  stay  in
the same job and a change in supervisors  will  produce  a  change  in
performance standards, which, depending on  how  well  the  individual
adapts, could cause a marked  changed  in  the  next  report.   DPPPEP
agrees that the contested  report  was  late  to  file;  however,  the
lateness does not invalidate  the  ratings  or  comments.   The  rater
stated she was TDY during the latter part  of  the  reporting  period;
therefore, it is logical to assume the report was delayed due  to  the
rater’s support of the TDY mission.  DPPPEP indicated  that  based  on
the character references provided, it  appears  there  was  a  lot  of
turmoil in the squadron at that time.  However,  those  incidents  are
not germane to the contested report and the retrospective views of the
rater, two and a half years after the closeout of the report,  do  not
carry  as  much  weight  as  assessments  made  when  the  facts   and
circumstances are fresh in  the  minds  of  the  evaluators.   The  HQ
AFPC/DPPPEP evaluation is at Exhibit C.


HQ  AFPC/DPPPWB  indicated  that  the  senior  master  sergeant  (E-8)
selection board for cycle 00E8 convened on 14 Feb 00.   DPPPWB  stated
that the first  time  the  contested  report  was  considered  in  the
promotion process was Cycle 00E8  to  senior  master  sergeant  (E-8),
promotions effective Apr 00 - Mar 01.  Should the  Board  correct  and
substitute the report as requested, the applicant will be entitled  to
supplemental promotion consideration commencing with Cycle 00E8.  They
defer to the recommendation of HQ  AFPC/DPPPEP.   The  HQ  AFPC/DPPPWB
evaluation, with attachment, is at Exhibit D.
_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant reviewed the advisory opinions and indicated  that  both
his rater and commander agree the report was an inaccurate  assessment
of his performance.   They  realized  that  they  made  a  mistake  in
judgments and both concurred and  requested  opportunities  to  change
this EPR.  His accomplishments during the contested rating  period  do
not logically compute to  a  performance  report  rated  significantly
lower than his peers.  His EPR was hampered by inaccurate  information
provided by the acting flight chief.  He willingly provided inaccurate
information about his performance because of a  personality  conflict.
The acting flight chief changed his duty title  six  days  before  the
closeout of the contested report.  He was  a  noncommissioned  officer
with a line number for senior noncommissioned officer  who  served  in
the capacity of superintendent  sports  and  fitness;  therefore,  his
title  should  not  have  been  changed.   The  applicant’s   complete
response, with attachment, 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  error  or  injustice.   After  reviewing  the  evidence
provided, specifically the statements  by  the  rating  chain  of  the
contested report,  we  believe  substantial  doubt  has  been  created
concerning the fairness and accuracy of the contested report.  In this
respect, we note that the rater stated that, since he was  TDY  during
the rating period, he  based  his  evaluation  on  the  acting  flight
chief’s comments.  However, he subsequently observed both  individuals
and realized a personality conflict existed between the applicant  and
the acting flight chief.  He, therefore, believes the  information  he
based his evaluation on was influenced by a personality  conflict  and
is not an accurate reflection of the  applicant’s  performance  during
that rating period.  The indorser provided his support by stating that
the contested report reflected inaccurate performance information that
was influenced by personality conflicts and poor judgment on the  part
of the rater preparing the report.  Based on these statements  and  in
the absence of a basis to question the integrity of these individuals,
we recommend that any  doubt  should  be  resolved  in  favor  of  the
applicant and conclude that the contested report  should  be  replaced
with the reaccomplished EPR provided  and  he  be  given  supplemental
promotion  consideration  to  the  grade  of  senior  master  sergeant
commending with Cycle 00E8.
_________________________________________________________________

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  2 February
1997 through 1 February 1998,  be  declared  void,  removed  from  his
records, and replaced with the reaccomplished  EPR  provided  for  the
same period.

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 00E8.

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 12 September 2002, under the provisions of AFI 36-
2603:

                  Mr. Jackson A. Hauslein, Panel Chair
                  Mr. James W. Russell III, Member
              Ms. Carolyn B. Willis, Member

All members  voted  to  correct  the  records,  as  recommended.   The
following documentary  evidence  was  considered  in  connection  with
AFBCMR Docket Number 02-01667.

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 25 Apr 02, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPPEP, dated 9 Jul 02.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPPWB, dated 12 Jul 02, w/atch.
   Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 26 Jul 02.
   Exhibit F.  Letter from Applicant, dated 15 Aug “01”, w/atch.




                                   JACKSON A. HAUSLEIN
                                   Panel Chair



AFBCMR 02-01667




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 that the
Enlisted Performance Report, AF Form 910, rendered for the period 2
February 1997 through 1 February 1998, be declared void, removed from
his records, and replaced with the reaccomplished EPR provided for the
same period.

      It is further directed that he be provided supplemental
consideration for promotion to the grade of senior master sergeant for
all appropriate cycles beginning with Cycle 00E8.

      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

Attachment
Reaccomplished EPR