RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  02-02131
            INDEX CODE:  111.02
            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) rendered for  the  periods  ending  15
May 2000 and 15 May 2001 be removed from his records.
_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The reports were written based  on  personal  feelings  of  dislike  by  his
supervisors and their  superiors  rather  than  on  his  performance  as  an
airman.

In support  of  his  request  applicant  submits  a  personal  statement;  a
sequence of events, a copy of his  application  to  the  Evaluation  Reports
Appeal Board (ERAB); a statement from the  supervisor  for  the  EPR  period
ending 15 May 2001; statements of support from personnel  assigned  to  Pope
AFB, NC and copies of his EPRs for the periods ending 15  May  2000  and  15
May 2001.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The Military Personnel Database (MilPDS) indicates applicant’s Total  Active
Federal  Military  Service  Date  as  16  September  1998.   He   has   been
progressively promoted to the grade of senior airman  (E-4),  effective  and
with a date of rank 16 September 2001.  The MilPDS  reflects  an  Air  Force
Commendation Medal for the period ending 30 June 2002.    A  similar  appeal
by the applicant was considered and denied by the ERAB.  The following is  a
resume of his EPR profile:

      PERIOD ENDING          PROMOTION RECOMMENDATION

    15 May 00                     3 (Contested Report)
    15 May 01                     3 (Contested Report)
    15 May 02                     5

Pursuant to a Inspector  General  (IG)  complaint  filed  by  the  applicant
containing  two  allegations  that  his  additional  rater   inappropriately
influenced his rater to give him a lower rating on the EPRs for the  periods
closing 15 May 00 and 15 May 01  and  one  allegation  that  the  additional
rater declined to support an EPR appeal package and informed  the  applicant
that he was not allowed to pursue the appeal any further,  an  investigation
was conducted by an investigating officer (IO) appointed by the Command  IG,
during the period 22 April to 9 May 2002.  In a  report  signed  on  21  May
2002, the IO concluded that all three of the  applicant’s  allegations  were
unsubstantiated.  Although the  allegations  were  unsubstantiated,  the  43
AW/IG recommended that the applicant consider appealing  his  EPRs  for  the
period ending 15 May 2000 and 15 May 2001, since there was  strong  evidence
to suggest the rater allowed himself to  be  influenced  by  his  superior’s
personal feeling toward the applicant.   In  addition,  the  IO  recommended
that the chain of command consider stressing to unit members the EPR  appeal
process.  Many of the witnesses of this investigation were under  the  false
understanding that the EPR appeal process must be routed through  the  chain
of command for approval/disapproval.  In addition, the IO  indicated  raters
should be reminded that they have the right to disagree  with  superiors  on
EPR  bullets  and  ratings.    Raters   should   feel   comfortable   rating
subordinates as they saw fit and not feel pressured by the rater’s rater  or
anyone else in the rating chain.  He stated raters should be  reminded  that
it was  their  responsibility  to  fairly  and  objectively  evaluate  their
airmen,  regardless  of  personal  like  and  dislikes.   The   Wing   Judge
Advocate’s review on 20 May 2002, found the Report of  Investigation  to  be
legally sufficient; however, the  Wing  Judge  Advocate  had  concerns  with
respect  to  the  Recommendations  by  the  IO.   The  Wing  Judge  Advocate
recommended that the only corrective action to be taken should be to  advise
the applicant to pursue the proper EPR appeals process  in  accordance  with
AFI 36-2401 and recommend to the chain of  command  to  educate  supervisors
and unit members on the EPR appeal process.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPPEP recommends the application  be  denied.   They  state  that  the
applicant  submitted  an  Inspector  General  (IG)  complaint  alleging  the
additional rater inappropriately influenced the rater to lower  the  overall
rating.  The allegations were not  substantiated.   However,  the  IG  noted
that while he was not coerced, the rater did allow his overall rating to  be
influenced by the additional rater.  The rater stated he  intended  to  give
the applicant an overall “4” rating, but  discovered  the  additional  rater
intended to nonconcur and downgrade  the  overall  rating  to  a  “2.”   The
evaluators agreed on a compromise and gave  the  applicant  an  overall  “3”
rating.  Therefore, DPPPEP believes the rater was not unduly  influenced  to
lower his rating.  He decided to give the applicant an  overall  “3”  rating
to possibly prevent  a  “2”  rating  if  the  additional  rater  would  have
nonconcurred.  The AFPC/DPPPEP evaluation is at Exhibit C.

AFPC/DPPPWB states that the first time  the  contested  reports  would  have
been considered in the promotion process was cycle 02E5 to  SSgt  (promotion
effective Sep 02 - Aug 03).  If the Board voids the  reports  as  requested,
providing he is otherwise  eligible,  the  applicant  will  be  entitled  to
supplemental promotion consideration for cycle  02E5.   The  applicant  will
become a select for the  02E5  cycle.   The  AFPC/DPPPWB  evaluation  is  at
Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Applicant states that when he received his first  “3”  rating  he  tried  to
appeal it but his additional rater turned his appeal down.  He  requested  a
different rater and was told by this rater that he  would  be  fair  in  his
rating of him.  He was told that “5” ratings were not given  to  airmen  but
if he kept up the good work he would receive a “4.”  However,  he  ended  up
with a “3” rating.  He is neither a troublemaker nor a  person  with  a  bad
attitude.  He worked very hard to get in the Air Force.  He was  Dorm  Chief
the full term in basic training and received Honor Flight  recognition.   He
received his red rope in technical school in less than  a  month.   When  he
arrived at Pope AFB, NC he was motivated to be the best that  he  could  be.
However, the additional rater did everything  he  could  to  stop  him  from
succeeding.  His ratings were  written  on  personal  feelings  rather  than
facts.  After his additional rater was removed from his  rating  chain,  his
Air Force career has exploded.  He has won  the  Airman  of  the  month  for
September 2001; Ceremonial  Knights  award  for  September  2001;  Sharpness
award for the month and Quarter, Leadership award for the quarter  and  year
2001.  He was assistant NCOIC of the Base Honor Guard and won Airman of  the
month for April 2002.  He requests that the Board look at  the  big  picture
and void the false reports from his record.

The applicant’s letter, with attachments, 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  careful  consideration  of  the
applicant’s  complete  submission,  to  include  the  supporting   statement
provided by his rater for the period 16 May 2000 through 15  May  2001,  who
fully supports the applicant and considers him to be a  hard  worker  and  a
person of strong  character  and  resolve,  it  appears  that  doubt  exists
concerning  the  accuracy  of  this  contested  report.   This   rater   has
unequivocally stated that the rating  the  applicant  deserved  during  this
rating period was a “4”; however,  due  to  the  strong  opposition  by  the
Section Chief for a lower rating coupled with his limited  experience  as  a
supervisor, he gave the applicant a rating of “3.”  We  have  no  reason  to
doubt the veracity of the  rater’s  comments  to  the  effect  that  he  was
precluded  from  exercising  his  independent  judgment  in  assigning   the
applicant’s promotion recommendation rating and that it  was  his  intention
to rate the applicant as a “4.”  Despite the absence  of  a  statement  from
the rater for the rating period  16  September  1998  through  15 May  2000,
overwhelming  evidence  has  been  presented  in  the  form  of   supporting
statements from senior  noncommissioned  officers  and  the  findings  of  a
Inspector General Investigation that causes us to believe that this EPR  may
have also been  based  upon  personal  feelings  rather  than  an  objective
evaluation  of  the  applicant’s   performance.    Therefore,   we   believe
sufficient doubt has been created as to the accuracy  and  fairness  of  the
contested reports to warrant removing them from the applicant’s record.   In
addition,  we  believe  the   applicant’s   corrected   record   should   be
reconsidered for promotion via the supplemental process  to  ensure  he  has
not been the victim of a promotion injustice.

_________________________________________________________________

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 Reports,  AF
Forms 910, rendered for the periods 16 May 1998 through 15 May 2000  and  16
May 2000 through 15 May 2001 be declared void and removed from his records.

It is further recommended that he  be  provided  supplemental  consideration
for promotion to the grade of staff  sergeant  for  all  appropriate  cycles
beginning with cycle 02E5.

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  AFBCMR
Docket Number 02-02131 in Executive Session  on  16  April  2003  under  the
provisions of AFI 36-2603:

                 Mr. Roscoe Hinton Jr, Panel Chair
                 Mr. Steven Shaw, Member
                 Ms. Brenda L. Romine, Member

     Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 24 Jun 02, w/atchs.
     Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPEP, undated.
     Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPWB, dated 16 Aug 02.
     Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 23 Aug 02.
     Exhibit F.  Letter, Applicant, dated 29 Aug 02.
     Exhibit G.  Letter, Report of Investigation, 43 AW/IG
                 w/atchs, dated 20 May 02 (withdrawn).




                                  ROSCOE HINTON JR
                                  Panel Chair

AFBCMR 02-02131




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 XXXXXXXXXXXXX, be corrected to show that the Enlisted
Performance Reports, AF Forms 910, rendered for the periods 16 September
1998 through 15 May 2000 and 16 May 2000 through 15 May 2001 be, and hereby
are, declared void and removed from his records.

      It is further directed that he be provided supplemental consideration
for promotion to the grade of staff sergeant for all appropriate cycles
beginning with cycle 02E5.

      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