RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  02-01803
            INDEX CODE:  111.05

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO


________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

The Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) rendered for the period  31 July  1999
to 30 March 2000, be declared void.

By amendment the applicant requests that the EPR  rendered  for  the  period
31 July 1999 to 30 March 2000, be upgraded from a rating of “3” to a “4”.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The decision by the indorser of  the  contested  report  to  non-concur  was
based on a false accusation and a commander  directed  investigation,  which
proved inconclusive and was made after the closeout date  of  the  contested
report.  The decision was also  changed  by  using  ‘white  out’  after  the
concur block was marked in Section  IV,  Promotion  Recommendation,  of  the
report.  There were no comments made as to why a non-concur was  marked  and
there were conflicts with the rater’s rating and comments made.

In support of his appeal, the applicant provided a personal  statement,  EPR
closing 30 March 2000 and other documentation.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant is currently serving in the Regular Air Force in the grade  of
technical sergeant.

The applicant appealed the contested report under the provisions of AFI  36-
2401 and the appeal was considered and  denied  by  the  Evaluation  Reports
Appeal Board (ERAB); however, the ERAB changed Section VI, Line 6 to  ensure
clarity of why the indorser non-concurred with the report.



EPR profile since 1996 reflects the following:

      PERIOD ENDING    EVALUATION OF POTENTIAL

            23 Oct 96        5
            30 Jul 97        5
            30 Jul 98        5
            30 Jul 99        5
      *  30 Mar 00           3
            30 Mar 01        4
            30 Mar 02        5

* Contested report

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPPEP recommended denial.  They indicated that the applicant  contends
the decision to non-concur  was  based  on  false  accusations,  which  were
proven inconclusive by  an  investigation  after  the  closeout  date.   The
applicant states a commander directed investigation  was  ongoing  when  the
report closed out and the additional  rater  based  his  assessment  on  the
incomplete findings.  However, only  the  evaluators  know  what  influenced
their assessments.  During the ERAB’s review of the appeal, they  determined
it was not clear in the indorser’s comments why  he  nonconcurred  with  the
promotion recommendation of the rater.  As  such,  the  ERAB  contacted  the
indorser to determine his reason for nonconcurring.  The indorser  confirmed
he agreed with the markings in Section III, but stated he  did  not  believe
the member was “Ready” for promotion.  As such, he gave  permission  to  the
ERAB to change his last bullet to make it clearer.   Additionally,  had  the
indorser or commander chosen to include the results of the investigation  or
the LOR/UIF entry, a 59-day  extension  to  the  closeout  could  have  been
requested.  Since the extension was not requested, it can  be  assumed  they
chose not to consider the investigation or the  allegations  when  assessing
performance.

The applicant contends improper procedures were followed  when  “white  out”
was used to change the additional rater’s concur markings to  nonconcur  and
no comments as to why a “nonconcur” was  marked.   However,  the  ERAB  also
addressed this issue by stating, “Lastly, a report is a working  copy  until
it is filed in a  member’s  record.   Therefore,  evaluators  may  change  a
report as often as necessary to ensure the  final  product  is  an  accurate
assessment of  performance."   Additionally,  it  was  pointed  out  to  the
applicant  that  AFI  36-2403,  paragraph  4.2.4,  authorizes  the  use   of
correction fluid to “change minor errors.”

The applicant provided  character  references  from  two  of  his  peers  as
evidence of his dedication  and  outstanding  performance.   However,  while
commendable, they do not override the assessments made  by  individuals  who
were better positioned to  observe  the  ratee’s  entire  duty  performance.
Additionally, while the character references imply  a  personality  conflict
existed between the applicant and the additional rater,  they  do  not  cite
specific examples of this conflict or show how the  conflict  prevented  the
additional rater  from  preparing  a  fair  and  accurate  assessment.   The
letters actually seem to indicate that  the  applicant  had  known  problems
during the reporting period (hereby substantiating the rating).   The  first
letter states the applicant’s “work  habits  were  questioned  by  ...”  the
indorser.  The second character reference further states the  applicant  had
“…personal differences with others in the work center.”  While  authors  are
entitled to their own opinions, it is the rating chain  who  was  tasked  to
assess the “work habits” and “personal differences”  of  the  applicant  and
render a fair/accurate report based on their assessment.

The changes directed by the ERAB resolved any  administrative  errors  found
on the report.  The ERAB further recommended that the applicant contact  the
Inspector General or Military Equal Opportunity to  report  any  actions  he
feels were biased or unfair.  After an official  investigation  and  if  the
allegations are substantiated, the applicant could then reapply to the  ERAB
to void the report.   However,  without  a  summary  of  investigation,  the
allegation that the rater was biased and  used  an  incident  that  occurred
outside the reporting period is unfounded.

The allegation that the rater was biased and used inappropriate  information
to render his assessment is unsubstantiated by the character  references  of
the applicant’s peers.  Only the evaluators can state what influenced  their
assessment.

The evaluation is at Exhibit C.

AFPC/DPPPWB  deferred  their  recommendation  to   HQ   AFPC/DPPPEP.    They
indicated that the first time the report was  considered  in  the  promotion
process was cycle 02E7 to master sergeant (promotions effective August  2002
- July 2003).  Should the AFBCMR void this report  as  requested,  providing
he is otherwise eligible, the applicant will  be  entitled  to  supplemental
consideration for this cycle.  He would not become a  select  for  the  02E7
cycle as his  total  score  would  increase  to  317.03,  below  the  332.59
required for selection in his Air Force Specialty Code (AFSC).

The evaluation is at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________



APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant reviewed the evaluations and provided a response, which 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 probable error or injustice.  After  reviewing  the  supporting
documentation submitted by the applicant, we believe that some doubt  exists
as to whether the indorser was biased in his assessment of  the  applicant’s
performance due to a possible  personality  conflict  between  him  and  the
applicant.  In our  opinion,  this  possible  conflict  may  have  adversely
influenced  the  evaluator’s  objectivity  in  assessing   the   applicant’s
performance.  In this respect, we note statements submitted from two of  the
applicant’s peers that indicate that there was an apparent conflict  between
the applicant and the indorser of the contested report.  We also  note  that
the ERAB denied the applicant’s appeal to void the contested  EPR;  however,
the ERAB agreed with the applicant that the indorser of  the  report  should
have provided a reason for his nonconcurrence  with  the  rater’s  promotion
assessment.  The indorser was contacted and he confirmed  that  although  he
agreed with the markings in Section III, he did not believe the  member  was
“Ready” for promotion.  He requested  the  ERAB  change  the  last  line  of
Section VI of the report to make it read clearer.   We  note,  however,  the
indorser didn’t indicate why he believed the applicant  was  not  ready  for
promotion.  While we chose not to speculate as to  the  indorser’s  reasons,
the Board believes that personalities possibly played a part in the  ratings
on the contested report which may  have  contributed  to  the  indorser  not
being able to render an accurate assessment of the applicant’s  performance.
 In view of the foregoing, and in an effort to offset any possibility of  an
injustice, we believe the contested EPR should be declared void and  removed
from his records.

4.    We note the applicant’s amended  request  to  upgrade  the  indorser’s
overall rating from a “3” to a “4.”   However,  the  Board  found  that  the
applicant has provided no documentation from his rating chain in support  of
this request.  Therefore, we find no compelling basis to recommend  granting
the applicant’s amended request.


_________________________________________________________________

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 31 July 1999 through  30  March  2000,  be
declared void and removed from his records.

_________________________________________________________________

The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket Number  02-01803
in Executive Session on 25 September 2002, under the provisions of  AFI  36-
2603:

            Mr. Lawrence R. Leehy, Panel Chair
            Mr. E. David Hoard, Member
            Ms. Diane Arnold, Member

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

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 22 May 2002, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPEP, undated.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPWB, dated 17 July 2002.
   Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 2 August 2002.
   Exhibit F.  Letter, Applicant, dated 12 August 2002.



                 LAWRENCE R. LEEHY
                 Panel Chair


AFBCMR 02-01803





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 31 July 1999 through 30 March 2000,
be, and hereby is, declared void and removed from his records.




            JOE G. LINEBERGER
            Director
            Air Force Review Boards Agency