RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2004-02657
            INDEX NUMBER: 111.02

      XXXXXXX    COUNSEL:  NONE

      XXXXXXX    HEARING DESIRED:  NO


_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

The Enlisted Performance Report (EPR), rendered for the period 3 March  2001
through 2 March 2002, be removed from his records.


_________________________________________________________________

THE APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The rater was coerced into marking less than he intended and no  performance
feedback contributed to the coercive action.

In support of the appeal, applicant submits his  personal  statement  and  a
copy of his package to the Evaluation Report  Appeals  Board  (ERAB),  which
includes a statement from the rater of the contested report.

The rater of the contested report states, in part,  that  he  discussed  the
report with the final evaluator and was told that if he stood by  his  fire-
walled markings on the front of the report and overall evaluation  of  five,
he [the final evaluator] would non-concur and downgrade the  overall  rating
to a four.  As a result, he [the rater] marked the applicant down  in  three
areas on the front of the report, but still rated him an overall five.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant is currently serving on active duty in  the  grade  of  master
sergeant.

The applicant’s request to have the contested EPR removed from  his  records
under AFI 36-2401 was denied by the ERAB.


Applicant’s performance profile since 1995, follows:

             PERIOD ENDING               OVERALL RATING

               12 Jul 95                       5
               26 Dec 95                       5
                1 Jun 96                       5
                2 Apr 97                       5
                2 Mar 98                       5
                2 Mar 99                       5
                    2 Mar 00                       5
                2 Mar 01                       5
              * 2 Mar 02                       5
                2 Mar 03                       5
                4 Mar 04                       5

* Contested EPR (Marked down in Leadership, Managerial Skills & Judgment)  &
top report reviewed during cycle 03E8.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS

AFPC/DPPPE recommends the application be denied and states,  in  part,  that
applicant’s contention the rater was pressured to change his assessment  has
not been adequately proven.  There is no proof of coercion.  The  rater  and
additional rater worked together to come to  an  agreement  on  the  report.
The fact the rater may change his mind some two years later  does  not  mean
he was coerced at that time.  It is not clear why the rater is  now  stating
a formal performance feedback session was  not  conducted;  however,  on  11
December 2001, he signed  an  official  EPR  stating  it  was  accomplished.
Regardless, this is a moot point since the lack of feedback, by  itself,  is
not sufficient to challenge the accuracy or justness of a report.

AFPC/DPPPW states, in part, that should the Board  remove  the  report,  the
applicant  will  be  entitled  to   supplemental   promotion   consideration
beginning with cycle 03E8.

The evaluations are at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS:

The conversation the commander and rater had regarding  the  overall  rating
of the report was not what the authors of AFI-36-2406 would  classify  as  a
discussion.  Further, without formal performance feedback it was  impossible
for him to correct whatever deficiencies in his  performance  the  commander
felt existed.  The AFPC/DPPPE evaluation implies that because he had  tested
for promotion twice since the contested report  his  request  is  simply  an
attempt to get a second chance for promotion.  However, he is not trying  to
“game” the system.  He is  appealing  because  he  feels  an  injustice  has
occurred.   His  request  is  strongly  justified  since  he  has   provided
corroborative evidence from the rater that he was coerced and  pressured  by
the commander to change the overall rating of the report.

Applicant’s complete response, with attachments, is at Exhibit E.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

1.  The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by existing law or
regulations.

2.  The application was timely filed.

3.  After a thorough review of the applicant's complete submission  and  the
evidence of record, a majority of the Board finds insufficient  evidence  to
demonstrate the contested report is an inaccurate assessment of  applicant’s
performance during the period in question.  The statement from the rater  of
the contested report is duly noted; however, a majority of the Board is  not
persuaded he was coerced and  pressured  by  the  commander  to  change  the
overall rating of the report, but rather  worked  together  to  come  to  an
agreement on the report.  Therefore, in  the  absence  of  evidence  to  the
contrary, a majority of the Board finds no  compelling  basis  to  recommend
granting the relief sought in this application.

_________________________________________________________________

RECOMMENDATION OF THE BOARD:

The 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-2004-02657
in Executive Session on 7 December 2004, under the  provisions  of  AFI  36-
2603:

                       Mr. Richard A. Peterson, Panel Chair
                       Mr. James W. Russell, III, Member
                       Mr. Patrick C. Daugherty, Member








By majority vote, the Board recommended  denial  of  the  application.   Mr.
Daugherty voted to correct the  records  but  does  not  wish  to  submit  a
minority report.  The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 19 Aug 04, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPE, dated 13 Oct 04.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 22 Oct 04.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, Applicant, dated 17 Nov 04, w/atchs.




                                   RICHARD A. PETERSON
                                   Panel Chair


AFBCMR
1535 Command Drive
EE Wing, 3rd Floor
Andrews AFB MD  20762-7002



      Your application to the Air Force Board for Correction of Military
Records, AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2004-02657,  has been finalized.

      By a majority vote, the Board recommended that your application be
denied as set forth in the attached Record of Proceedings.  However, after
a careful review and consideration of all factors involved, the Director,
Air Force Review Boards Agency accepted the minority opinion and determined
the military records should be corrected as set forth in the attached copy
of a Memorandum for the Chief of Staff, United States Air Force.  The
office responsible for making the correction(s) will inform you when your
records have been changed.

      After correction, the records will be reviewed to determine if you
are entitled to any monetary benefits as a result of the correction of
records.  This determination is made by the Defense Finance and Accounting
Service (DFAS-DE), Denver, Colorado, and involves the assembly and careful
checking of finance records.  It may also be necessary for the DFAS-DE to
communicate directly with you to obtain additional information to ensure
the proper settlement of your claim.   Because of the number and complexity
of claims workload, you should expect some delay.  We assure you, however,
that every effort will be made to conclude this matter at the earliest
practical date.

                                        Sincerely




                 ROSE M. KIRKPATRICK
                 Chief Examiner
                 Air Force Board for Correction
                 of Military Records


Attachments:
1.  Cy of Directive, w/Cy of Proceedings
2.  SAF/MRB Letter

cc:  DFAS-DE




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

FROM: SAF/MRB

SUBJECT:    XXXXXXX, XXXXXXX, BC-2004-02657

      I have carefully considered the rationale of the Board majority;
however, I agree with the minority member that applicant’s Enlisted
Performance Report (EPR), rendered for the period 3 March 2001 through 2
March 2002, should be voided and he be provided supplemental consideration
for promotion to the grade of senior master sergeant for all appropriate
cycles beginning with cycle 03E8.

      The applicant contends the rater was coerced into marking his
performance less than he intended on the contested EPR.  I note his
assertion is strongly supported by the rater of the report who indicates
that he discussed the report with the final evaluator and was told that if
he stood by his fire-walled markings on the front of the report and overall
evaluation of five, he [the final evaluator] would non-concur and downgrade
the overall rating to a four.  The rater further states that based on the
discussion, he marked the applicant down in three areas on the front of the
report, but still rated him an overall five.

      The aforementioned statement from the rater leads me to believe the
contested EPR may not have been an accurate depiction of the applicant’s
performance at the time it was rendered.  Therefore, having no basis to
question the integrity of this individual, I believe any doubt should be
resolved in favor of the applicant.  Accordingly, I direct the EPR rendered
for the period 3 March 2001 through 2 March 2002, be voided and the
applicant’s corrected record be provided supplemental promotion
consideration beginning with cycle 03E8.




                                       JOE G. LINEBERGER
                                       Director
                                       Air Force Review Boards Agency


AFBCMR BC-2004-02657




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 XXXXXXX, XXXXXXX, be corrected to show that the Senior Enlisted
Performance Report (MSgt thru CMSgt), AF Form 911, rendered for the period
3 March 2001 through 2 March 2002, 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 senior master sergeant (E-8) for all
appropriate cycles beginning with cycle 03E8.

      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
individual ineligible for the promotion, such information will be
documented and presented to the board for a final determination on the
individual’s qualification for the promotion.





                                        JOE G. LINEBERGER
                                        Director
                                        Air Force Review Boards Agency