RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBERS:  BC-2003-00197
                    INDEX CODE 111.02  111.03  111.05
            COUNSEL:  None

            HEARING DESIRED:  No

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

The Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) closing 1  Aug  00  be  declared
void and removed from his records.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The rater told him he (the rater) intended to mark the EPR with a  “4”
but did not finalize the report  before  his  assignment  change.  The
applicant does not believe the ratings given fairly match the comments
and claims some tension existed between him and the additional  rater.
He also indicates his attempts to obtain support from  the  rater  and
additional rater  were  unsuccessful.  He  provides  three  supporting
statements from others as well as an email from the rater advising  he
would contact the additional rater about changing the  rating  of  the
contested EPR. The rater also indicated he would  send  the  applicant
the paperwork to start the process if a change were needed.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

During the period in question, the  applicant  was  a  staff  sergeant
assigned to the 25th Fighter Squadron at Osan AB, Korea, as a  support
section craftsman. He is currently serving in the grade  of  technical
sergeant.

His most recent EPRs reflect the following:

      PERIOD ENDING          OVERALL EVALUATION

       31 Mar 94                  4
       31 Mar 95                  5
       29 Jul 96                  5
       29 Jul 97                  5
       29 Jul 98                  5
        1 Jun 99                  5
      * 1 Aug 00                  3
       19 Mar 01                  4
       19 Mar 02                  5

*Contested Report

HQ AFPC/DPPPWB advised the AFBCMR Staff via email that  the  applicant
was selected by cycle 01E6 for technical sergeant with a date of  rank
(DOR) of 1 Sep 01.  Further, the  report  will  not  be  used  in  the
promotion process again until  he  is  eligible  for  master  sergeant
(cycle 04E7).

The applicant has not filed an appeal under the provisions of AFI  36-
2401.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

HQ AFPC/DPPPE notes there is no indication from  the  rater  that  his
intention was to mark the promotion block with a  “4”  rating  as  the
applicant alleges. Even if this were true, the additional rater  would
still nonconcur with the promotion rating and mark him down to a  “3.”
Thus, the final rating would remain a “3.” Further, the applicant  has
not established that there was additional rater bias as he insinuates.
DPPPE finds the comments and rating consistent. Denial is recommended.

A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A complete copy of the Air  Force  evaluation  was  forwarded  to  the
applicant on 14 Feb 03 for review and comment within 30 days.   As  of
this date, this office has received no response.

_________________________________________________________________

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 to warrant voiding  the  contested
EPR.  The applicant has typically received EPRs with  overall  ratings
of  “5”  and  comments  attesting  to  years   of   outstanding   duty
performance. While the comments and  performance  evaluations  in  the
1 Aug 00 report may be consistent with an overall rating of “3,”  this
EPR is, in our view, a carefully crafted instrument designed  to  harm
the  applicant.   First,  we  question  why  a  rater  would   be   so
irresponsible as to leave his evaluation of a  subordinate  “unmarked”
and therefore vulnerable  to  uncontested  and  possibly  unauthorized
changes. Second, while the lackluster comments would appear to justify
the lower overall rating, why would the rater deliberately downplay  a
major achievement as “. . . totally refurbish[ed] eight assigned  tool
boxes” and  make  no  mention  that  this  accomplishment  earned  the
applicant  a  Superior  Performer  Award  in  Oct  99   for   superior
performance? We grant that evaluators may select the highlights  of  a
ratee’s performance; however, we find such an omission  in  this  case
decidedly suspect.  Even  if  the  applicant’s  performance  had  been
otherwise mediocre, we believe an objective evaluator still would have
cited such a noteworthy  award  and  not  omitted  or  reduced  it  to
insignificance with blasé remarks. The fact  that  the  rater  did  so
raises the possibility of bias. Further, while the applicant  provides
no rating chain statements, he does submit a letter  from  the  master
sergeant who supervised both the rater and the applicant from  Oct  99
to Apr 00. This was a considerably longer period of  observation  than
that of the additional rater, given that the applicant  was  on  leave
and doing paperwork for a humanitarian reassignment for  most  of  the
time the additional rater was in his rating chain. Contrary to the Air
Force’s opinion, we find the master sergeant’s  specific  examples  of
the applicant’s excellent performance  pertinent  and  persuasive.  We
believe it very possible that the  additional  rater’s  appraisal  may
have been  negatively  influenced  by  insufficient  observation,  the
rater’s questionable evaluation, the applicant’s efforts  and  related
absence regarding a humanitarian reassignment, or all of the above. In
any event, we conclude that the  contested  EPR  is  not  an  accurate
assessment of the applicant’s performance for  the  rating  period  in
question and, to preclude any possibility of an  injustice,  recommend
it be removed from his records.   According  to  HQ  AFPC/DPPPWB,  the
applicant was selected for technical sergeant by the 01E6 cycle. Since
the report  will  be  voided  before  he  is  eligible  for  promotion
consideration to master sergeant by cycle 04E7, supplemental promotion
consideration is not necessary.  Therefore,  the  applicant’s  records
should be corrected as indicated below.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT:

The pertinent military records of the  Department  of  the  Air  Force
relating to APPLICANT, be corrected to show that:

The pertinent military records of the Department of  the  Air  Force
relating to the APPLICANT, be corrected to show  that  the  Enlisted
Performance Report, AF Form 910, rendered for the period 2 June 1999
through 1 August  2000,  be  declared  void  and  removed  from  his
records.
_________________________________________________________________

All members  voted  to  correct  the  records,  as  recommended.   The
following  members  of  the  Board  considered  this  application   in
Executive Session on 15 May 2003 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

                 Mr. Robert S. Boyd, Panel Chair
                 Mr. Grover L. Dunn, Member
                 Mr. James A. Wolffe, Member

The following documentary evidence relating to AFBCMR Docket Number BC-
2003-00197 was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 13 Jan 03, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPPE, dated 6 Feb 03.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 14 Feb 03.





                                   ROBERT S. BOYD
                                   Panel Chair

AFBCMR BC-2003-00197




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 2 June 1999
through 1 August 2000, be, and hereby is, declared void and removed
from his records.





   JOE G. LINEBERGER

   Director

   Air Force Review Boards Agency