RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2003-01312
            INDEX NUMBER:  111.00
      XXXXXXXXXXXX     COUNSEL:  None

      XXX-XX-XXXX      HEARING DESIRED:  No

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

The Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) rendered on him for  the  period
24 Apr 98 through 23 Apr 99 be voided and removed from his records.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

His rater was pressured into rating him an overall “4.”

In support of his appeal, applicant provides a letter of support  from
his former rater, letters of recommendation from his chain of command,
and  copies  of  the  appeals  he  previously  submitted  through  the
Evaluation Reports Appeal Board (ERAB)

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
master sergeant (MSgt).  A resume of the  applicant’s  last  ten  EPRs
follows:

      Closeout Date                     Overall Rating

        9 May 94                        5
        9 May 95                        5
        3 Dec 95                        5
       22 Oct 96                        5
       23 Apr 97                        5
       23 Apr 98                        5
      *23 Apr 99                        4
       13 Mar 00                        5
       13 Mar 01                        5
       13 Mar 02                        5

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPPE  recommends  denial  of  the  applicant’s   request.    The
applicant’s rater  does  not  provide  any  evidence  to  support  his
assertion that  undue  pressure  was  placed  upon  him  to  rate  the
applicant an overall “4.”  The applicant did not state why the rater’s
rater would mark him down unfairly or pressure the  rater  to  do  the
same.  Further the applicant’s commander states he discussed  the  “4”
rating with the evaluators and understood there were several  problems
in the work center and based on this input, he concurred with the  “4”
rating.  The commander’s letter also specifically states he  acted  on
advice of the rater.  As such, it is not clear why the rater states in
his supporting letter that he was “pressured” to give a rating that he
was evidently advocating.

The complete evaluation is at Exhibit C.

AFPC/DPPPWB provides information regarding the impact of the contested
report on the applicant’s promotion opportunity.  If the Board removes
the EPR, he would  normally  be  entitled  to  supplemental  promotion
consideration beginning with cycle 00E7.  However, it would  serve  no
useful purpose since the additional points the  applicant  would  gain
are not sufficient to make him a selectee.  The applicant was selected
for promotion during the next cycle, 01E7, and received a date of rank
of 1 Mar 02.

The next time the EPR will be used in the promotion process  is  cycle
04E8 for promotion to senior master sergeant (SMSgt).

The complete evaluation is at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on
4 Jun 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.  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,  the  Board   majority   agrees   with   the   opinions   and
recommendations of the Air Force offices of primary responsibility and
adopts their rationale as the primary basis for their conclusion  that
the applicant has not been  the  victim  of  an  error  or  injustice.
Although the applicant’s immediate rater states that he was  pressured
into giving the applicant an overall “4” rating, he does not elaborate
on what type of pressure was  applied  and  any  actions  he  took  to
protect his rights as a rater.  In  reviewing  the  justification  for
voiding the EPR given by the applicant’s rater, flight commander,  and
squadron commander, the Board majority is puzzled as to  how  the  “4”
rating was erroneously given.  Noticeably  absent  is  any  indication
that the applicant’s indorser was questioned as to his  reasoning  for
the “4” rating.  This would certainly be helpful since  he  is  blamed
for the rating.  The majority notes that  on  the  EPR  the  applicant
received immediately prior to the  contested  report,  with  the  same
rating chain, he was rated a  “5.”   It  therefore  appears  that  the
decision to render a “4”  was  consciously  thought  out.   The  Board
majority  believes  that  there  are  too  many  unanswered  questions
regarding the applicant’s EPR.  Therefore, in the absence of  evidence
to the contrary, they find no compelling basis to  recommend  granting
the relief sought in this application.

_________________________________________________________________

RECOMMENDATION OF THE BOARD:

A majority of the  Board  finds  insufficient  evidence  of  error  or
injustice and recommends the application be denied.

_________________________________________________________________

The following members of the Board considered Docket  Number  BC-2003-
01312 in Executive Session on 20 August 2003, under the provisions  of
AFI 36-2603:

      Ms. Olgar M. Crerar, Panel Chair
      Ms. Leslie Abbott, Member
      Mr. James W. Russell, III, Member

By a majority vote, the Board voted to deny applicant’s request.   Ms.
Crerar voted to grant the applicant’s  requests  and  has  attached  a
minority report at Exhibit F.  The following documentary evidence  was
considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 7 Apr 03, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPPPE, dated 19 Apr 03.
    Exhibit D.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPPPWB, dated 27 May 03.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 4 Jun 03.
    Exhibit F.  Minority Report, dated 25 Aug 03.




                                   OLGAR M. CRERAR
                                   Panel Chair
MEMORANDUM FOR   THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF
                   MILITARY RECORDS (AFBCMR)

SUBJECT:    AFBCMR Application of XXXXXXXXXX, XXX-XX-XXXX

      On 20 August 2003, the Board considered and denied an application for
correction of military records pertaining to subject applicant.  The
majority of the Board voted to deny the applicant’s request to void his EPR
closing 23 Apr 99.  I disagree with their recommendation.

      The applicant has provided strong support from his immediate rater,
flight commander, and squadron commander admitting that an error was made
regarding the rating he received on his contested EPR.  I note that rating
chain support is normally the overriding factor in similar cases granted by
the Board.  While unfortunate that the rating chain did not recognize the
error prior to the EPR becoming a matter of record, I find nothing in their
statements that causes me to question their account of events and the
credibility of this appeal.  In fact, I find the support of the squadron
commander most compelling since he was authorized to change the applicant’s
overall rating.  I do not find it unusual that the commander concurred on
the contested report, since, I’m sure, he placed trust in his supervisors
to make the correct call.  When confronted with information that an error
had occurred, his actions to correct it should only be challenged in the
face of compelling evidence that contradicts his version of events.  No
such evidence is available in this case.  In view of the admitted errors
made by the applicant’s rating chain, our failure to approve this request
would constitute a grave injustice.  Therefore, I strongly urge that the
requested relief be granted.

                                       OLGAR M. CRERAR, Civ
                                       Panel Chair




MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, AIR FORCE BOARD
                                        FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY
RECORDS (AFBCMR)

SUBJECT:  AFBCMR Application of XXXXXXXXX, XXX-XX-XXXX

      I have carefully reviewed the evidence of record and the
recommendation of the Board members and disagree with the majority’s
recommendation to deny this appeal.  As noted by the minority member, the
applicant has provided strong support from his rating chain.  This type of
support has normally been the deciding factor in our previous decisions to
grant relief in similar appeals.  Given the potential impact of the
contested EPR on the applicant’s future promotion opportunity, I believe
that any doubt regarding the appropriateness of the report should be
resolved in his favor.  Therefore, I believe that relief should be granted
and the report voided and removed from his records.






                                        JOE G. LINEBERGER
                                        Director
                                        Air Force Review Boards Agency

AFBCMR BC-2003-01312


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 XXXXXXXXX, XXX-XX-XXXX, be corrected to show that
the Enlisted Performance Report (AB thru TSgt), AF Form 910,
rendered for the period 24 Apr 98 through 23 Apr 99, be, and hereby
is, declared void and removed from his records.




            JOE G. LINEBERGER
            Director
            Air Force Review Boards Agency