RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2003-00423
            INDEX NUMBER:  111.05
      XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX  COUNSEL:  None

      XXX-XX-XXXX      HEARING DESIRED:  No

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

The Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) rendered on him for the  period
21 Jul 00 through 22 Dec 00 be voided and removed from his record.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The markdowns in Section III, blocks 5 and 6, were based on  personal
bias towards him by his squadron commander after disagreement over an
Aerospace Expeditionary Forces (AEF) tasking he was selected for.

The markdowns in Section III are contrary to the comments in Sections
V, VI, and VII.

His squadron commander pressured his rater into marking his EPR down.
 His squadron commander had no legal or ethical reasons  to  withhold
his promotion to senior master sergeant (SMSgt) or to  downgrade  his
overall rating to 4 or lower, so she used unethical means  to  derail
his career.

He was never provided performance feedback that his  performance  had
shortcomings and, thus, had no opportunity to improve  his  purported
deficiencies.  The reason indicated on  his  EPR  for  not  receiving
feedback is a complete fabrication.

In support of his appeal, applicant provides a  five-page  memorandum
that gives an overview of his performance as a senior noncommissioned
officer (SNCO) during his career, his version of events that  led  to
the unfair EPR, statements of support from his rater and former  wing
commander, character references, and copies of his EPRs.

His rater failed to provide specific details in his letter of support
due to fear of ramifications.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant is presently serving on active duty  in  the  grade  of
senior master sergeant.  His Total Active  Federal  Military  Service
Date (TAFMSD) is 14 Oct 82.  The applicant has a high year of  tenure
(HYT) of 1 Oct 08.

The applicant’s last ten EPRs reflect overall ratings of “5.”

The Evaluation Reports Appeal Board denied a similar appeal from  the
applicant to remove the EPR closing out 22 Dec 00.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPPE recommends denial of the applicant’s request.

While the  applicant  cites  several  reasons  why  he  believes  his
additional rater was biased against him,  he  has  not  provided  any
evidence  or  witness’s  statements  that   would   corroborate   his
allegation.  It is all “hearsay” and completely unsubstantiated.  The
statement provided  by  the  applicant’s  rater  offers  no  specific
reasons why his initial assessment of the applicant was incorrect and
does not claim he was coerced as a result of the  additional  rater’s
alleged bias.  It is important to note that  the  applicant  had  the
same additional rater for two  previous  evaluations,  which  had  no
markdowns.  It is clear that the applicant’s rating chain  felt  that
the applicant was a firewall performer on his previous  reports,  but
changed their opinion based on  his  performance  during  the  rating
period in question.

Additionally, the applicant states that he was not provided  feedback
by either the rater or commander and that the reason  given  for  his
not receiving feedback  was  a  fabrication.   However,  he  has  not
provided  the  required  supporting  documentation  to  support   his
contention.  The Senior Rater (who was not an evaluator on  the  EPR)
provided a letter of support only  to  agree  that  the  reason  that
feedback was not accomplished is inaccurate.  The applicant  did  not
provide a statement from the rater indicating what the actual  reason
for not conducting feedback was.  Furthermore, AFI 36-2406, paragraph
2.10 states “A rater’s failure to conduct  a  required  or  requested
feedback session will  not,  of  itself,  invalidate  any  subsequent
performance report.”

The complete evaluation is at Exhibit C.

AFPC/DPPPWB  makes  no  recommendation  regarding   the   applicant’s
request, but  advises  that  should  the  EPR  be  removed  from  the
applicant’s records, he will be entitled  to  supplemental  promotion
consideration beginning with cycle 02E9.

The complete evaluation is at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Copies of the Air Force evaluation were forwarded to the applicant on
14 Mar 03 for review and comment within 30 days.  To date, a response
has not been received.

_________________________________________________________________


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.   The  Board  notes  that  the
comments in Sections V, VI, and VII of the contested report  are  not
consistent with the markdowns in Section III, items  5  and  6.   The
comments give no indication as to the applicant’s deficiencies in the
areas of “judgment” and “professional qualities.”   Additionally,  we
note that the contested report is  inconsistent  with  other  reports
rendered on the applicant, immediately before and after.  While  each
performance report represents a  specific  period  in  time  that  an
individual is being rated, when an individual’s  performance  changes
so drastically, it should be clear to anyone viewing the record  what
constituted the variance in  performance.   As  such,  the  contested
report rendered on the  applicant  fails  to  do  so  and  imposes  a
significant blemish on what had otherwise been a sterling  record  of
performance.   We  believe  that  a   rater   has   the   right   and
responsibility to render an accurate assessment  of  an  individual’s
performance.  However, when rendering an adverse rating,  we  believe
that the failure to  clearly  indicate  what  influenced  the  rating
constitutes an injustice.  Therefore, in the interest of  equity  and
justice, we recommend that the applicant’s records  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 Senior  Enlisted
Performance Report (MSgt thru CMSgt), AF Form 911, rendered  for  the
period 21 Jul 00 through 22 Dec 00, be declared void and removed from
his records.

It  is  further  recommended  that  he   be   provided   supplemental
consideration for promotion to the grade  of  chief  master  sergeant
(E-9) beginning with cycle 02E9.

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 applicant ineligible for the promotion, such information will  be
documented and presented to the Board for a  final  determination  on
the individual’s qualifications 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 Docket Number  BC-2003-
00423 in Executive Session on 7 May 2003, under the provisions of AFI
36-2603:

      Mr. Joseph G. Diamond, Panel Chair
      Ms. Kathleen F. Graham, Member
      Ms. Dorothy P. Loeb, Member

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

     Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 29 Jan 03, w/atchs.
     Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
     Exhibit C.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPPPE, dated 21 Feb 03.
     Exhibit D.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPPPWB, dated 26 Feb 03.
     Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 14 Mar 03.




                                   JOSEPH G. DIAMOND
                                   Panel Chair



AFBCMR BC-2003-00423


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 XXXXXXXXXX, XXX-XX-XXXX, be corrected to show
that the Enlisted Performance Report (MSgt thru CMSgt), AF Form
911, rendered for the period 21 Jul 00 through 22 Dec 00, be, and
hereby is, declared void and removed from his records.

      It is further directed that he be provided supplemental
consideration for promotion to the grade of chief master sergeant
(E-9) beginning with cycle 02E9.

      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 applicant ineligible for the promotion, such
information will be documented and presented to the Board for a
final determination on the individual’s qualifications 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