RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  02-02405
            INDEX CODE:

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

The Enlisted Performance Reports (EPRs) rendered for the periods    13
May 1998 through 12 May  1999  and  13  May  1999  through           4
December 1999 be declared void and removed from his records.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The 98-99 report was written during a time period when his father  was
terminally ill from cancer.  He had taken 2 weeks of leave in October,
November, and again in December 1998, when his father  finally  passed
away after a long struggle with cancer.  During these 3 months, he was
still required to make his monthly quota of normally 4-5 new  recruits
each month.  However, due to his absence, he was only able to  achieve
one new accession versus a goal of 13.  This was also  the  year  that
the entire Air Force was struggling to make its annual goal.   It  was
hard enough to make quota on a monthly basis, but to miss 2 weeks  out
of the month made it almost impossible.  On the day he  returned  from
leave following his father’s  funeral,  he  had  a  4-page  letter  of
direction waiting for him at the office  detailing  what  he  must  do
daily to over-produce and make up the lost enlistments  from  when  he
was on leave.  Other flight chiefs in the  squadron  agreed  with  him
that these  expectations  were  not  realistic  and  would  be  almost
impossible to achieve.  The attached letter from SMSgt L--- C---,  who
was the squadron trainer, has stated the expectations  levied  on  him
were excessive.  He was working from 0800-2100 Monday  through  Friday
and 0900-1600 on Saturday.  When he received his feedback  after  this
EPR, he was given the justification for the ratings:  for  not  making
quota, it was reduced to a 4 and, for not meeting the expectations, it
was reduced again to  an  overall  3  rating.   There  is  no  written
feedback because due  to  geographic  separation  in  recruiting,  his
feedback was conducted over the phone.  The fact that he finished  the
previous fiscal year (ending September 1998) at 103% in production  is
not mentioned in the EPR.  The 12 May 1999 EPR  only  says  “currently
sitting at 68% for this fiscal year.”  The fact that he started fiscal
year 99 at .07% for the first 3 months of the year, and over the  next
5 months he had recovered to  68%  should  be  evidence  that  he  was
working hard to accomplish his recruiting mission.  He feels that  the
rater’s and endorser’s comments  do  not  support  the  ratings  given
(numbers like 122% EAD, (Entered Active Duty) 400% production in ROTC,
92% in critical Cat I/III enlistments and only a 4% loss rate for  the
years in MEPS processing to name a few).  Unfortunately, when he  left
recruiting and PCS’d back to his primary AFSC, he misplaced the copies
of the letters of direction.  He was able to obtain a different letter
of direction given to him in August 1999 and a  letter  given  to  him
only 19 days after being assigned his first monthly quota.  The letter
from August 1999 has the names blacked out because  he  had  faxed  it
them to another flight chief, MSgt R--- L--- who still  had  the  copy
and faxed it back to him.  The only offer of proof he  has  that  this
was directed at him is the office symbol of 364 RCS/BC  and  his  name
are on the top of the form from when he faxed it.  Compare that to the
other document with his signature on it, you will see  the  BC  office
symbol there as well.   Due to the length of time since his  departure
from Recruiting Service and moving, he has not  been  able  to  locate
more of the documents, which he received, that would support his claim
of unrealistic goals.  The letters attached should provide an idea  of
the mentality of the leadership under which he worked.

In support of the appeal,  applicant  submits  a  personal  statement,
copies of the contested  reports,  a  copy  of  the  April  Production
(mandatory work hours and efforts), a copy of the Letter of Direction,
dated 9 August 1999, a copy of a Memorandum for Record, dated 29 March
2002, and a statement from the squadron trainer.

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 master sergeant.

EPR profile since 1996 reflects the following:

      PERIOD ENDING                 EVALUATION OF POTENTIAL

         1 Jun 96                         5
        12 May 97                         5
        12 May 98                         5
       *12 May 99                         3
        *4 Dec 99                         4
         4 Dec 00                         5
         4 Dec 01                         5

      *Contested Reports

The applicant filed an appeal under the  provisions  of  AFI  36-2401,
Correcting Officer and Enlisted Evaluation Reports,        1  December
1997.  The Evaluation Reports Appeal Board (ERAB) denied  his  request
to void the reports.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPP states that in order to void a report, there must  be  clear
evidence that the  original  evaluation  was  unjust  or  wrong.   The
applicant is not claiming that the evaluation of his performance based
on  his  rater’s  expectations  is  inaccurate.    He   contends   the
expectations are unjust.  However, the applicant  did  not  provide  a
summary of investigation from the Inspector General’s (IG)  office  or
from the Military Equal Employment  (MEO)  office  substantiating  the
evaluators were incapable of rendering a fair and accurate assessment.
 Evidence suggests that the rater provided clear guidance, in the form
of the Letter of Direction, to assist him in meeting expectations  for
production.

Furthermore, a review of the  contested  reports  does  not  show  any
inconsistency  between  the  ratings  and  comments.   The  Rater  and
Additional Rater comments on both reports  mention  his  struggles  to
meet expectations and are compatible with  the  overall  “3”  and  “4”
ratings assessed.

In summary, an evaluation report is considered to represent the rating
chain’s best judgment at the time it is rendered.  Once  a  report  is
accepted for file, only  strong  evidence  to  the  contrary  warrants
correction or removal from an  individual’s  record.   The  burden  of
proof is on the applicant.  It is  DPPP’s  opinion  that  he  has  not
substantiated the contested reports were not rendered in good faith by
all evaluators based on knowledge available at the  time.   Therefore,
they recommend denial of applicant’s request.

A complete copy of the evaluation is attached at Exhibit C.

AFPC/DPPPWB  states  that  a  member  will  not  normally  be  granted
supplemental consideration  if  the  error  or  omission  appeared  on
his/her Date Verification Record (DVR) or in the Unit Personnel Record
Group  (UPRG)  and  the  individual  did  not  take  the   appropriate
corrective or follow-up action before  the  original  board  convened.
The purpose of this policy is to reduce the number of “after the fact”
changes that are initiated in an effort to get  a  second  opportunity
for promotion.  The applicant did not file an appeal through the  ERAB
until 14 May 2002, after the board convened for cycle 99E8 (1 February
1999) and 00E8   (14 February 2000).  The first cycle the 12 May  1999
EPR was used in the promotion process was cycle 99E8 to senior  master
sergeant (SMSgt) (promotions effective April  1999-March  2000).   The
first cycle the 4 December 1999  report  was  used  in  the  promotion
process was cycle 00E8 to SMSgt (promotions  effective  April  2000  –
March 2001).  Should the AFBCMR void the  reports  as  requested,  the
applicant will be entitled  to  supplemental  consideration  beginning
with cycle 99E8 to SMSgt.

A complete copy of their evaluation is attached at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

On 4 October 2002, copies of the Air Force evaluations were  forwarded
to the applicant for review and response within 30 days.  As  of  this
date, no response has been received by this office.

_________________________________________________________________

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.  After reviewing the evidence  of
record, we are not persuaded that the applicant’s records are in error
or that he has been the victim of an injustice.  His  contentions  are
noted; however, in our opinion, the detailed comments provided by  the
appropriate Air Force offices adequately  address  those  allegations.
Therefore, we agree with opinions and recommendations of the Air Force
and adopt their rationale as the basis for  the  conclusion  that  the
applicant has not been the victim of an error or  injustice.   In  the
absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no  compelling  basis  to
recommend granting the relief sought in this application.

_________________________________________________________________

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 9 January 2003, under the provisions of  AFI  36-
2603:

                       Mr. Wayne R. Gracie, Panel Chair
                       Mr. Grover L. Dunn, Member
                       Mr. Thomas J. Topolski, Jr., Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

      Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 3 Jul 02, w/atchs.
      Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
      Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPPP, dated 13 Sep 02.
      Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/DPPPWB, dated 16 Sep 02.
      Exhibit E. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 4 Oct 02.




                             WAYNE R. GRACIE
                             Panel Chair