RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBERS:  02-02383
      INDEX CODE 111.02  111.05  131.00
            COUNSEL:  None

            HEARING DESIRED:  No

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

The Enlisted Performance Report (EPR)  closing  12  Mar  98,  with  an
overall rating of “4,” be voided and replaced with the  reaccomplished
EPR having an overall rating of “5,” and he be  afforded  supplemental
promotion consideration to the grade of technical  sergeant  beginning
with cycle 01E6.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The report contains many errors, omissions and false  statements.  The
rating is the unjust result of a personality conflict between  himself
and his supervisor that inhibited the development  of  a  professional
and unbiased relationship. The  hostile  environment  created  by  the
supervisor affected the entire office. The indorser signed a blank EPR
shell or the EPR was altered after the fact  and  the  indorser  never
received the final copy. As a result, the indorser changed the EPR  to
reflect nonconcurrence and the higher rating of “5.” He also  has  the
commander’s signature  concurring  with  the  indorser’s  decision  to
upgrade the report.

The indorser provides a supporting statement indicating,  among  other
things, that his social security number is incorrect.   Also  provided
are statements from a lieutenant  colonel  who  observed  the  rater’s
actions towards the applicant, and from the  rater’s  supervisor.  The
applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.

Examiner’s Note: The reaccomplished EPR provided  cannot  be  used  as
currently written. It does not include the rater’s  signature  or  the
indorser’s complete SSN. Further, the signature dates for the indorser
and the commander reflect 2002. In order for the report to be included
in cycle 01E6 supplemental promotion consideration, these dates  would
have to be changed to  the  1998  timeframe.  However,  if  the  Board
believes relief is warranted,  it  can  direct  that  all  appropriate
corrections be made to the original EPR.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 24 Apr 91  and  was
ultimately promoted to the grade of staff sergeant with a date of rank
of 1 Nov 98.  During the period in  question,  he  was  an  operations
resource  management  journeyman  with  the  24th  Operations  Support
Squadron at Howard AFB, Panama.

The overall ratings of his performance reports from the period closing
30 Jul 94 through 7 Sep 01 are: 4, 4, 4, 5, 4 (contested), 5,  5,  and
5.

The applicant was considered but not selected  for  promotion  to  the
grade of technical sergeant in cycle 01E6.

According to HQ AFPC/DPPPEP, the applicant filed an appeal  under  the
provisions of AFI 36-2401; however, it was denied.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

HQ AFPC/DPPPEP  asserts  the  applicant  has  not  provided  firsthand
evidence clearly showing  how  a  possible  conflict  with  his  rater
prevented the evaluator from preparing a  fair  and  accurate  report.
The indorser clearly states he was aware of “a  personality  conflict”
between the applicant and the rater and even counseled the rater on at
least two  occasions.  It  would  appear  the  indorser  had  all  the
information  he  needed  in  providing  his  own  fair  and   accurate
assessment.  It wasn’t clear why the indorser might sign a report with
unmarked ratings for which: 1) he believed  there  to  be  a  conflict
between the rater and ratee, and 2) a report with which he intended to
nonconcur. Personnel who do not perform at expected standards  or  who
require close supervision may believe that an evaluator is  personally
biased; however, conflict  generated  by  this  attention  is  usually
professional rather than personal. Denial is recommended.

A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit B.

HQ AFPC/DPPPWB also reviewed the appeal and advises that,  should  the
Board upgrade the report as requested, the applicant would be entitled
to supplemental promotion consideration beginning with cycle 01E6  and
would become a selectee pending favorable data  verification  and  the
commander’s recommendation.

A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant asserts his office practiced  signing  blank  copies  as
most of the Air Force. People do not like to  incriminate  themselves.
He  provided  evidence  that  showed  how  the  personality   conflict
prevented the evaluator from preparing a  fair  and  accurate  report.
Office leadership wanted to remove  the  rater  but  higher  authority
would not allow this. It is unclear to him why the indorser signed the
report with an  unmarked  rating,  knowing  there  was  a  personality
conflict.  However, he should not pay the  price  in  his  career  for
mistakes his leadership made at the time.

The applicant’s complete response is at Exhibit E.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

1.    The applicant has exhausted all remedies  provided  by  existing
law or regulations.

2.    The application was timely filed.

3.    Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate
the existence of error or injustice to  warrant  voiding  the  EPR  in
question. We noted the statements submitted in support of this appeal.
However, neither they nor the applicant have  persuaded  us  that  the
rater was unable to render an objective evaluation for  the  contested
performance period. If the indorser truly believed that the rater  was
so biased she would be  unable  to  properly  assess  the  applicant’s
performance, we question why he would sign a blank  EPR  form  in  the
first place and why, over four years later, he and the  applicant  now
raise the issue of prejudice. Even if the rater’s management style was
less than desirable and she and the applicant had  difficulty  working
together, that does not inherently signify that her assessment of  him
was wrong. This is not  the  first  or  only  performance  report  the
applicant has received with an overall  rating  of  “4.”  Neither  the
unspecific supporting statements nor the applicant’s  assertions  have
demonstrated how the contested EPR is unfair, harsh, inaccurate  or  a
product of bias. In view of the above and absent  persuasive  evidence
to the contrary, the applicant has failed to  sustain  his  burden  of
having suffered either an error or an injustice. Therefore, we find no
compelling basis to recommend granting the relief sought.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:

The  applicant  be  notified  that  the  evidence  presented  did  not
demonstrate the existence of material error  or  injustice;  that  the
application was denied without a personal appearance; and
that the application will only be reconsidered upon the submission  of
newly  discovered  relevant  evidence   not   considered   with   this
application.

_________________________________________________________________

The following members of the  Board  considered  this  application  in
Executive Session on 29 October 2002 under the provisions of  AFI  36-
2603:

                 Ms. Peggy E. Gordon, Panel Chair
                 Mr. Christopher Carey, Member
                 Mr. Billy C. Baxter, Member

The following documentary evidence relating to AFBCMR Docket Number 02-
02383 was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 22 Jul 02, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPPEP, dated 19 Aug 02.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPPWB, dated 20 Aug 02.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 30 Aug 02.
   Exhibit E.  Letter, Applicant, dated 11 Sep 02.




                                   PEGGY E. GORDON
                                   Panel Chair

AFBCMR 02-02383


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 (EPR), AF Form 910, rendered for the period 13
March 1997 through 12 March 1998 was amended as follows:

           a.  The indorser’s promotion recommendation in Section IV
reflects “5” rather than “4.”

           b.  The last word in Section V reflects “Responsibility”
rather than “responsibility.”

           c.  Section VI reflects “Nonconcur” rather than “Concur,”
and the indorser’s social security number reflects “458-11-9593”
rather than “530-74-3352.”

      It is further directed that he be provided supplemental
consideration for promotion to the grade technical sergeant for all
appropriate cycles beginning with 01E6 with the corrected EPR in his
records.

      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

MEMORANDUM FOR   THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, AIR FORCE BOARD FOR
                 CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS (AFBCMR)

FROM:  SAF/MR

SUBJECT: AFBCMR Case of        , AFBCMR Docket No. 02-02383

      I have carefully considered all the circumstances of this case
and do not agree with the AFBCMR that the applicant’s request should
be denied.

      Having no basis to question the statements from the indorser,
the rater’s supervisor, and a lieutenant colonel who unequivocally
attest that the rater unfairly rated the applicant due to a
personality conflict, I believe equity dictates that the EPR be
upgraded and its minor errors amended as appropriate.  In this
respect, the rater’s supervisor confirms the rater’s harsh treatment
of the applicant and the lieutenant colonel advises that he
witnessed the rater’s actions towards the applicant and, while he
was not in the rating chain, verbally counseled the rater and
ultimately removed her from her supervisory position partly because
of her behavior towards the applicant.

      In view of the foregoing, any doubt in this case should be
resolved in favor of the applicant.  The reaccomplished report
provided by the applicant cannot be used as it does not have the
rater’s signature or the indorser’s complete social security number.
Further, the signature dates for the indorser and the commander
reflect 2002, which would render it ineligible for promotion
consideration in the 01E6 promotion cycle.  However, the rating of the
original EPR can be upgraded and its minor errors corrected.

      Accordingly, I direct the contested EPR be  upgraded,  corrected
as indicated, and the applicant  be  afforded  supplemental  promotion
consideration to the grade of technical sergeant for cycle 01E6.




                 MICHAEL L. DOMINGUEZ
                 Assistant Secretary
                 (Manpower and Reserve Affairs)