RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2003-01201
            INDEX NUMBER:  111.00
      XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX      COUNSEL:  None

      XXX-XX-XXXX      HEARING DESIRED:  Yes

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

The Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) rendered on him for the period 1
Jul 01 through 30 Jun 02 be substituted with a revised report.

He be granted supplemental promotion  consideration  to  chief  master
sergeant (CMSgt) beginning with the 02E9 CMSgt promotion cycle.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The senior rater (SR) endorsement on the  contested  report  does  not
provide an honest, fair, or accurate description and  characterization
of  his  performance,  achievements,  and  promotion  potential.   The
endorsement  also  contains  no  quantification,  stratification,   or
promotion statement that he believes he earned as the Command’s Senior
Noncommissioned Officer (SNCO) of the Year and 12  Outstanding  Airmen
of the Year for 2001/02.

His hard work, performance, leadership, and  promotion  potential  are
not limited to the period of the contested report.  He provides a list
of other awards and recognitions he has received.

He provides 10 attachments that contain sound documentation  that  the
endorsement he received on the contested EPR is questionable, and  not
commensurate  with  the  outstanding  performance,   leadership,   and
promotion potential  he  demonstrated  during  the  reporting  period.
Included is a statement from his former commander/rater verifying that
he prepared the indorsements that were not used.

His commander provided  two  honest,  just,  and  accurate  EPRs  with
suggested SR endorsements that reflected his  performance  during  the
reporting period.  However, the Command Chief  Master  Sergeant  (CCM)
advised  he  and  his  commander  that  she  would  not  support   the
recommended  SR  endorsements  and  gave  them  several  reasons  why.
However,  the  CCM  advised  that   she   would   support   a   strong
stratification and promotion statement, which he did not receive.

Other senior NCOs and CCMs have advised  him  that  his  senior  rater
should not have considered the reasons she used for not supporting his
SR endorsement as the #1 senior master sergeant in  the  command.   He
believes his CCM acted as the Air Force promotion  board  and  allowed
her ten-year review of his record to determine  and/or  influence  his
endorsement for the referenced reporting period.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant entered active duty in the Air Force on 22 Aug  80.   He
was promoted to the grade of senior master sergeant on 1  Mar  01.   A
resume of the applicant’s  ten  most  recent  EPRs  indicates  overall
ratings of “5.”

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPPE  recommends  denial  of  the  applicant’s   request.    The
applicant has  requested  the  AFBCMR  violate  Air  Force  policy  by
inserting comments into  his  EPR  that  the  senior  rater  does  not
support.  According to AFI 36-2406, senior raters may endorse EPRs  in
the following situations:  to differentiate between  individuals  with
similar performance records since both ratings and endorsement  levels
have  an  impact  on  those  who  use  the  grade  requirements.   The
applicant’s rater acknowledges in his 10 Nov 02 memorandum, “there  is
no obligation for the additional rater to use the  draft  comments  in
whole or in part.”  They note that in this case the  additional  rater
was also the senior rater.

The complete evaluation is at Exhibit C.

AFPC/DPPPWB defers to the recommendation of AFPC/DPPPE.  However, they
note that an individual will  not  normally  be  granted  supplemental
promotion consideration if the error or omission appeared  on  his/her
Data Verification Record (DVR) or in the Unit Personnel  Record  Group
(UPRG) and the individual  did  not  take  appropriate  corrective  or
follow-up action before the original board  convened.   The  applicant
did not file an appeal through the  Evaluation  Reports  Appeal  Board
(ERAB) until 4 Feb 03, after the board convened for the 02E9 cycle (15
Oct 02).

The complete evaluation is at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant responded to the Air Force  evaluations  by  reiterating
the reasons he believes the SR endorsement  on  his  contested  report
does  not  provide  an  honest,  fair,  or  accurate  description  and
characterization  of  his  performance,  achievements,  and  promotion
potential during the respective reporting period.  He  indicates  that
the evaluation done by AFPC/DPPPWB does not speak to the foundation of
his appeal.  The procedures used by the senior rater to  evaluate  his
EPR  for  senior  rater  endorsement  involved  the  consideration  of
inappropriate information in accordance with AFI 36-2406.     He  also
feels that both evaluations fail to  address  the  basic  question  of
integrity and asks the rhetorical question of what does it take to  be
the #1 SMSgt when he had been selected the Command’s SNCO of the  Year
for the respective reporting period.

The applicant points out that each of his SNCO EPRs  since  9  Dec  97
have always contained a  senior  rater  endorsement,  which  contained
stratification, quantification, and/or promotion statement.   In  most
cases, he received both.  The applicant points out that the SR on  his
contested report signed strong stratification statements  on  previous
reports and was also the one who signed the letters  and  certificates
of recognition he has received.  His  SNCO  EPRs  prove  that  command
award winners are stratified  and/or  given  promotion  statements  in
their senior rater’s endorsement.

The applicant  states  that  a  senior  rater  endorsement  without  a
stratification and/or promotion statement, especially the most  recent
EPR, sends a clear signal to the  board  that  is  viewed  negatively.
Having an inconsistent senior rater endorsement history, as caused  by
his contested EPR  is  viewed  negatively,  especially  since  he  has
consistently received stratification and/or promotion statements since
1997.  In the year that he was  recognized  as  the  #1  SNCO  in  the
command, he, inexplicably,  received  an  endorsement  that  does  not
contain a stratification and/or  promotion  recommendation  consistent
with his performance and achievements.

The applicant questions whether  the  command  chief  master  sergeant
fulfilled  her  role  of  providing  the  senior  rater  with  honest,
accurate, and  factual  information  to  assist  him  in  reaching  an
informed and just decision concerning the performance and  achievement
of  those  receiving  a  senior  rater  indorsement.   The   applicant
indicates that the CCM’s opinion or judgment that a “4”  EPR  from  10
years earlier should preclude him from getting  a  stratification  (#1
SMSgt/SNCO) or promotion statement, especially when earned, is clearly
an injustice.  The applicant provides some discussion on  how  such  a
view would effectively preclude any  person  who  received  less  than
perfect  ratings  early  in  their  career  from  ever  recovering  or
overcoming the rating.

It is inappropriate to consider duty history  or  performance  outside
the reporting period.   The  senior  rater  endorsement  is  for  that
specific reporting period and/or promotion cycle.  Promotion  eligible
SMSgt EPRs are racked and stacked for senior  rater  endorsement  each
and every year.  The applicant  believes  that,  clearly,  during  the
closeout of his EPR and subsequent promotion cycle, he was selected #1
SNCO in the command.

The applicant takes issue  with  AFPC/DPPPE’s  assertion  that  he  is
seeking to have the  AFBCMR  “put  words  into  the  additional/senior
rater’s mouth”  by  inserting  comments  he  does  not  support.   The
applicant emphasizes that the intent of his appeal has always been  to
correct an injustice  and  to  put  the  honest,  just,  and  accurate
information that he deserves in his EPR.

The applicant’s complete submission, 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.  Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented  to  demonstrate
the  existence  of  error  or  injustice.   We  took  notice  of   the
applicant's complete submission in judging the  merits  of  the  case;
however, we agree with the opinions and  recommendations  of  the  Air
Force offices of primary responsibility and adopt their  rationale  as
the primary basis for our conclusion that the applicant has  not  been
the victim of an error or injustice.  Additionally,  the  Board  notes
that the applicant does not provide any evidence showing support  from
his rating chain to revise his EPR.  He  also  does  not  provide  any
evidence that he sought an explanation from the command  chief  master
sergeant or senior rater for the content of his indorsement.  Although
the  applicant’s  rater  indicates  that   he   prepared   two   draft
indorsements for the senior rater’s consideration, he  also  does  not
indicate any efforts on his part to find out  why  neither  was  used.
The applicant has not provided sufficient evidence to  show  that  the
senior rater’s decision to use a different indorsement constituted  an
error or injustice.  Therefore in  the  absence  of  evidence  to  the
contrary, we find no compelling basis to recommend granting the relief
sought in this application.

4.  The applicant's case is adequately documented and it has not  been
shown  that  a  personal  appearance  with  or  without  counsel  will
materially  add  to  our  understanding  of   the   issues   involved.
Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorably considered.

_________________________________________________________________
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 Docket  Number  BC-2003-
01201 in Executive Session on 6 October 2003, under the provisions  of
AFI 36-2603:

      Ms. Marilyn Thomas, Panel Chair
      Ms. Barbara R. Murray, Member
      Ms. Ann-Cecile McDermott, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 27 Mar 03, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPPPE, dated 3 Jun 03.
    Exhibit D.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPPPWB, dated 20 Jun 03.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 3 Jul 03.
    Exhibit F.  Memorandum, Applicant, dated 17 Jul 03.




                                   MARILYN THOMAS
                                   Panel Chair