RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  03-02201
            INDEX CODE:  111.02
      APPLICANT  COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO


_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His Enlisted Performance Reports (EPRs) rendered  for  the  periods  1 April
1999 through 31 March 2000  and  1  April  2000  through  31 March  2001  be
removed from his records.
_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The rater’s rater was found to have abused his authority  by  relieving  him
of his duties on 8 February 2000.  Therefore,  an  objective  evaluation  of
his performance could not be rendered.

In support of his request, applicant submits a copy of  the  Summary  Report
of Investigation.  Applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is  at
Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 31 July 2002, the  applicant  was  relieved  from  active  duty  and  was
retired in the grade of  chief  master  sergeant  effective  1 August  2002.
Applicant was credited with 22 years, 1 month and 15 days  of  total  active
duty service for basic pay and  21  years,  8  months  and  10  days  active
service for retirement.
The following is a resume of his EPR profile:

      PERIOD ENDING          PROMOTION RECOMMENDATION

      05 May 97                   5
      05 May 98                   5
      31 Mar 99                   5
      31 Mar 00                   5 (Contested Report)
      31 Mar 01                   5 (Contested Report)

The applicant filed an Inspector General  (IG)  complaint  containing  three
allegations that his commander reprised against him by (1) relieving him  of
duty when he was preparing to make  a  protected  disclosure  to  the  group
commander, in violation of 10 USC 1034; (2) that his  commander  abused  his
authority by pressuring the rater to  change  his  EPR;  and  (3)  that  his
commander  abused   his   authority   by   threatening   subordinates   with
retaliation.  An investigating officer (IO)  appointed  by  the  Command  IG
conducted an investigation during the period  14 December  2000  through  27
February 2001.  In a report signed on 11 May 2001,  the  IO  concluded  that
all three of the applicant’s allegations were unsubstantiated.   On  21  May
2001, the -- FW/IG disagreed with the IO’s conclusions with  regard  to  the
third  allegation,   believing   that   sufficient   evidence   existed   to
substantiate this finding.  The Numbered Air Force IG concurred with the  IO
that the third allegation was unsubstantiated.  However, they noted  that  a
fourth allegation should have been  framed  as  a  subset  to  the  original
reprisal allegation.  Specifically they alleged that  the  commander  abused
his authority by relieving the applicant of  his  duty  when  the  commander
discovered that the applicant had made an appointment to see the  Operations
Group commander.  The Numbered Air Force IG  found  this  allegation  to  be
substantiated.  (See Exhibit E).

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPPE recommends the application be denied.  DPPPE states  that  it  is
Air Force policy that an evaluation report is accurate as  written  when  it
becomes a matter of record.  The 31 March 2000  EPR  does  not  contain  any
errors, nor was any evidence provided  proving  any  type  of  reprisal  was
committed on the part of the applicant’s  commander.   The  only  contention
the IG supported was “when” the commander relieved him  of  duty,  not  why.
DPPPE further states that the applicant also did not  provide  any  evidence
to support his contention regarding reprisal on the  31 March  2001  report.
The AFPC/DPPPE evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

On 22 August 2003, a copy of the  Air  Force  evaluation  was  sent  to  the
applicant for review  and  comment.   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 injustice.  After a thorough review of the evidence of  record,
we are persuaded that the contested reports for the periods ending 31  March
2000 and 31 March 2001 are  not  accurate  reflections  of  the  applicant’s
performance during the periods in question.  Information  contained  in  the
Inspector General Investigation report  causes  us  to  believe  that  these
Evaluation Performance Reports (EPRs)  may  have  been  based  upon  factors
other than an objective  evaluation  of  the  applicant’s  performance.   It
appears that a conflict did exist between  the  applicant  and  the  rater’s
rater, the conflict was a well-known fact within the  applicant’s  chain  of
command and, because of  that  conflict,  an  objective  evaluation  of  the
applicant’s performance may not have been possible.  Based  on  the  climate
in the organization as  depicted  in  the  IG  ROIs,  we  believe  that  the
opinions of the members of  the  applicant’s  rating  chain  were  adversely
affected by the openly antagonistic attitude  of  the  unit  commander  (his
rater’s rater) toward the applicant to a degree that it may have  interfered
with their  abilities  to  render  fair  and  accurate  assessments  of  the
applicant’s performance.  We note that the ratings  the  applicant  received
in the performance factors of judgment  and  leadership  did  not  correlate
with the word pictures presented in the comments of the  evaluators  on  the
contested reports.  Finally, the ratings on the contested  report  represent
a drastic  departure  from  the  applicant’s  previously  reported  superior
performance over an extended period of time.  In view  of  the  totality  of
the circumstances involved,  we  believe  that  all  doubts  concerning  the
validity of the contested reports should  be  resolved  in  the  applicant’s
favor and that, in an effort to offset any possibility of an injustice,  the
circumstances present in this case warrant the correction  of  the  EPRs  as
recommended below.  We propose the  following  correction  because,  in  our
estimation, to remove the reports  as  the  applicant  had  requested  would
constitute a perpetuation of the injustice of the circumstances that led  to
the placement of the reports in his records.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT:

The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force  relating
to APPLICANT  be  corrected  by  deleting  the  markings  in  Section  III,
Evaluation of Performance, Item 3, Leadership, and Item 5, Judgment, of the
Enlisted Performance Reports,  AF  Forms  910,  rendered  for  the  periods
1 April 1999 through 31 March 2000 and 1 April 2000 through 31 March  2001,
showing he was rated a “Highly Effective Leader” and “Emphasizes Logic  and
Decision  Making”  and  inserting  markings  showing  he   was   rated   an
“Exceptionally Effective Leader” and “Highly Respected and Skilled.”

_________________________________________________________________

The following members of the Board considered this application in  Executive
Session on 9 October 2003 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

                 Mr. Gregory H. Petkoff, Panel Chair
                 Mr. James A. Wolffe, Member
                 Ms. Dorothy P. Loeb, Member

The following evidence was considered  in  connection  with  AFBCMR
Docket No. BC-2003-02201:

     Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 26 Jun 03, w/atchs.
     Exhibit B.  Applicant’s Master Personnel Records.
     Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPE, dated 18 Aug 03.
     Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 22 Aug 03.
     Exhibit E.  I.G. Report of Investigation, dated 26 Mar 02
                 (withdrawn).





                                  GREGORY H. PETKOFF
                                  Panel Chair

AFBCMR BC-2003-02201




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 APPLICANT be corrected by deleting the markings in Section
III, Evaluation of Performance, Item 3, Leadership, and Item 5, Judgment,
of the Enlisted Performance Reports, AF Forms 910, rendered for the
periods 1 April 1999 through 31 March 2000 and 1 April 2000 through
31 March 2001, showing he was rated a “Highly Effective Leader” and
“Emphasizes Logic and Decision Making” and inserting markings showing he
was rated an “Exceptionally Effective Leader” and “Highly Respected and
Skilled.”






  JOE G. LINEBERGER

  Director

  Air Force Review Boards Agency