RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBERS:  BC-2003-03247
                       INDEX CODE 111.02  111.05
                       COUNSEL:  None

                       HEARING DESIRED:  No


_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) for the period 28 Apr 01 through
25  Mar  02  be  declared  void   and   removed   from   his   records
[administratively  accomplished];  his  duty  title  be  corrected  to
reflect “NCOIC, Evaluation Procedures Section,” rather than “Assistant
NCOIC,” effective 1 May 01; and he be afforded supplemental  promotion
consideration to technical sergeant (TSgt) for cycle 04E6.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The applicant warns there is a conflict of interest because  he  works
in the HQ AFPC office that will render the  advisory  the  Board  will
review.  He has written advisories for over three years for evaluation
appeals and has clearly substantiated rating chain bias.  During  this
entire reporting period [18 Apr 01 - 25 Mar 02] he never once received
a Letter of Counseling (LOC), Letter of Reprimand (LOR), Article 15 or
any other form of derogatory counseling. He was  awarded  the  “NCOIC,
Eval Procedures Section” duty title on 31 May 00. His  coworkers  hold
the title of “NCOIC” and one held that title while still  a  SSgt.  He
finds it very odd that a copy of the Report of Investigation (ROI)  of
his complaint cannot be found. It is apparent  to  him  that  the  ROI
and/or the resultant HQ AFPC/JA advisory are purposely being denied to
him as they contain substantiated documentation that the rating  chain
was biased. He requests the AFBCMR direct AFPC/JA provide  a  copy  of
their advisory to uncover a higher level of rating chain bias.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant is currently serving in  the  grade  of  staff  sergeant
(SSgt) and is assigned to HQ AFPC at Randolph AFB.

In the EPR for the period 18 Apr 00 through 17 Apr 01, the applicant’s
duty title was “NCOIC, Evaluation Procedures Section.”

Around 22 Apr 02, the contested report was referred to the  applicant.
His duty title  on  this  report  was  “Assistant  NCOIC,  Performance
Evaluation Section.”  The applicant’s on/off duty conduct  was  marked
unacceptable in Section III and the overall rating was  3.  The  rater
commented  that  the  applicant’s  performance  was  inconsistent   in
timeliness of work, he required assistance from coworkers to  complete
some of his cases, intervention was required to  resolve  an  off-base
dispute, and he improperly managed his finances  by  not  following  a
financial plan and purchasing items he could not afford.

On 28 May 02, the applicant filed an IG complaint  against  the  rater
for assigning the majority of additional duties to him, causing him to
be unable to complete work at the  same  rate  as  his  coworkers  and
thereby provoking hostility among them; inappropriately giving him the
title of “Assistant NCOIC;” chastising him in front of coworkers;  and
inappropriately initiating a referral report based on his having filed
for bankruptcy and on unproven allegations  of  physical/sexual  abuse
against and nonsupport of his wife.

On 13 Jun 02, the 25 May 02 referral report was reaccomplished so that
it was no longer a referral report. The overall rating was still a  3.
The rater’s comments now  reported  that  off-duty  personal  problems
caused a drop in the applicant’s actual job performance  but  that  he
had shown recent signs of positive improvement and had stayed on track
with  his  workload  with  increased  attention  to  timeliness.   The
additional rater  suggested  the  applicant  continue  to  be  closely
mentored.

On 20 Jun 02, HQ AFPC/IG  advised  the  applicant  that  a  commander-
directed investigation (CDI), rather than an IG  investigation,  would
be conducted. On 21 Jun 02, the  AFPC/CC  appointed  an  investigation
officer (IO).

On 26 Jul 02, AFPC/JA provided the AFPC commander  a  written  review,
essentially finding the CDI  legally  sufficient.  The  legal  opinion
indicated that since the EPR had  been  altered  to  no  longer  be  a
referral report, no command corrective action was required.

On 12 Dec 02, an EPR closing 24 Nov 02 was referred to the  applicant.
His duty title  on  this  report  was  “Assistant  NCOIC,  Performance
Evaluation Section.”  Three of the performance factors in Section  III
reported that he failed to meet minimum  standards,  had  unacceptable
on/off duty conduct and  was  an  ineffective  supervisor/leader.  The
overall rating was  2  and  the  applicant  was  not  recommended  for
promotion. The rater commented that two off-duty incidents  marred  an
otherwise excellent performance. The applicant received two LORs,  one
for an “unprofessional relationship” and another for being apprehended
while driving drunk and subsequently failing to report. The additional
rater reported that comments were requested but not received from  the
applicant within the required period. He added  that  the  applicant’s
otherwise excellent performance on the job had  been  overshadowed  by
his off-duty decision-making. The additional rater signed  the  report
on 6 Jan 03.

The applicant’s requests under the Freedom of Information  Act  (FOIA)
for copies of the ROI and the resultant AFPC/JA advisory  were  denied
in May and Jun 03 because the ROI could not be found and the  advisory
was not releasable.

On 20 Jun 03, the IO advised the applicant he could not remember which
allegations were substantiated and which were not.

On 1 Jul 03, the AFPC squadron section advised the applicant that  the
IO found the preponderance of the evidence substantiated  two  of  the
seven allegations he made in his complaint. Both of these  allegations
(the rater’s inappropriate use of bankruptcy filing  and  an  unproven
allegation of spousal abuse) related to the 25 Mar 02 EPR and both had
previously been corrected by the revision of the EPR from  a  referral
to a non-referral report.

On 18 Sep 03, the applicant filed this AFBCMR appeal.

In a 2 Oct 03 memo,  SAF/MRBR  requested  that,  given  the  potential
conflict of interest, HQ AFPC/DPPP consider conducting an  independent
Evaluation Reports Appeal Board (ERAB) as  a  forum  to  consider  the
requested change to the 25 Mar 02 EPR. If the independent ERAB  review
did not result in the requested  relief,  then  SAF/MRBR  directed  an
advisory from an external agency.

On 16 Oct 03, the ERAB approved the applicant’s request  to  void  the
EPR closing 25 Mar 02. As a  result,  HQ  AFPC/DPPP  directed  the  12
MSS/DPMPE to  replace  the  report  with  the  provided  AF  Form  77,
Supplemental Evaluation Sheet, which indicated the applicant  was  not
rated for the period 18 Apr 01 through 25 Mar 02.

The applicant’s performance report profile since 1993 reflects the
following:

            PERIOD ENDING    OVERALL EVALUATION
                  1 Mar 93              5
                 28 Nov 93              5
                 28 Nov 94              5
                 28 Nov 95              5
                 30 Jun 96              5
                  1 Jan 97              5
                  1 Jan 98              5
                  1 Jan 99              5
                 24 Oct 99              5
                 17 Apr 00              5
                 17 Apr 01              4
                 25 Mar 02              3 (Contested - Voided on
                                       16 Oct 03 & replaced
                                       with AF Form 77)
                 24 Nov 02              2 (Referral)
_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

HQ AFPC/DPPP advised that on 1 Jan 01 three separate sections  (AFBCMR
Advisory Section, Evaluation Reports Appeal Section,  and  Evaluations
Procedures Section) merged into one section  (Performance  Evaluations
Section). With this reorganization, the section chief was  faced  with
several NCOs, TSgts and the applicant, with an “NCOIC” duty title. The
long-term solution was to keep the TSgts’ duty titles as  NCOIC  until
they departed and, since the TSgts outranked the applicant, to  change
his duty title to Assistant NCOIC. Since that time, the section  chief
has continued with this philosophy (new SSgts have  a  duty  title  of
Evaluation Procedures and Appeals Analyst). Therefore, the applicant’s
request for a duty title change should be denied. Since the 25 Mar  02
EPR will have been removed from the applicant’s records, the record is
not eligible for a supplemental look. The final decision on  his  duty
title will not  impact  promotion  to  TSgt.  The  applicant  is  also
ineligible for supplemental promotion consideration for the 03E6 cycle
because of a commander-directed referral EPR for the period 26 Mar  02
through  24  Nov  02,  which  was  rendered  prior  to  the  promotion
eligibility cutoff date (PECD) for cycle 03E6.

A complete copy of the evaluation, with attachments, 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 24 Oct 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 partial relief. The EPR
closing 25 Mar 02 was administratively  voided  from  the  applicant’s
records. The applicant is  not  eligible  for  supplemental  promotion
consideration for the 03E6 cycle because he received a referral EPR on
24 Nov 02 before the PECD for that cycle. He  also  does  not  require
supplemental promotion consideration for the 04E6  cycle  as  the  EPR
contested in the instant case has been  administratively  voided  and,
according to HQ AFPC/DPPP, will be removed from  his  records  by  the
time he meets that cycle. Therefore, the only issue remaining for this
Board’s consideration is the duty title. The  applicant  contended  in
his rebuttal to the original referral 25 Mar 02 EPR that a SSgt in his
center was given the duty title of NCOIC and that  his  rater  singled
him out with an unequal duty title for doing the same job as the other
enlisted members. We note  the  advisory  opinion  states  that  three
separate sections were merged into one section on 1  Jan  01  and  the
decision was for the TSgts to keep duty titles  as  NCOIC  until  they
departed and to change  the  applicant’s  title  to  Assistant  NCOIC.
However, we note the EPR covering the period 18 Apr 00 through 17  Apr
01  still  reflected  the  NCOIC  duty  title,  which  was  after  the
reorganization. While the  CDI  report  is  apparently  no  longer  in
existence, the 26 Jul 02 HQ AFPC/JA advisory, which cannot be released
to the applicant, was reviewed by this  Board  and  substantiated  the
rater’s improper judgment  regarding  the  contested  report.  We  are
concerned that some of the management practices may be tainted and, in
order to offset the possibility of  an  injustice,  believe  that  any
doubt regarding  this  remaining  issue  should  be  resolved  in  the
applicant’s favor. We therefore recommend his duty title be changed to
“NCOIC, Evaluation Procedures Section.”

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT:

The pertinent military records of the  Department  of  the  Air  Force
relating to the APPLICANT be corrected to show that his duty title  is
“NCOIC, Evaluation Procedures Section,” rather than “Assistant NCOIC,”
effective 1 May 2001.

_________________________________________________________________

The following members of the  Board  considered  this  application  in
Executive Session on 11 December 2003 under the provisions of AFI  36-
2603:

                 Ms. Marilyn Thomas, Panel Chair
                 Ms. Martha Maust, Member
                 Mr. Albert C. Ellett, Member

All members voted  to  correct  the  records,  as  recommended.    The
following documentary evidence relating to AFBCMR  Docket  Number  BC-
2003-03247 was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 18 Sep 03, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPP, dated 17 Oct 03, w/atchs.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 24 Oct 03.





                                   MARILYN THOMAS
                                   Panel Chair




AFBCMR BC-2003-03247




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 his duty title is
“NCOIC, Evaluation Procedures Section,” rather than “Assistant NCOIC,”
effective 1 May 2001.





   JOE G. LINEBERGER

   Director

   Air Force Review Boards Agency