RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2004-02755
                       INDEX CODE:  111.02

                       COUNSEL:  None

                       HEARING DESIRED:  Yes

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

The  Enlisted  Performance  Report  (EPR)  rendered  for  the   period
30 December 2001 through 11 August 2002 be declared void.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The EPR in question was not an  accurate  assessment  of  his  overall
performance.  He submitted an Inspector General  (IG)  complaint,  Air
Force (AF) Form 102, dated 26 March  2004,  indicating  he  previously
filed a complaint alleging reprisal for being  erroneously  placed  on
the Weight Management Program (WMP) by his  squadron  commander.   His
performance  feedbacks  reflected  his  true  duty  performance.    He
believes his EPR was misrouted and documentation was removed to  delay
final signature.  His rater’s rater rewrote his EPR weaker and  closed
it out with a “senior rater indorsement” (SRI).

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant is currently serving in the Regular  Air  Force  in  the
grade of senior master sergeant (SMSgt).

The applicant filed an Inspector General (IG)  complaint  on  9 August
2002 due to his  commander  erroneously  placing  him  on  the  Weight
Management Program (WMP).  The applicant withdrew his complaint on  12
August 2002.  The applicant filed another IG complaint  on  28  August
2002 regarding being erroneously placed on the  WMP.   On  15  October
2002, the IG informed the applicant in accordance with AFI  40-502,  a
servicemember who has been placed in the 90-day exercise  and  dietary
program and then goes on a  medical  waiver  where  weight  management
restrictions have been placed, the servicemember is  disenrolled  from
the program until the  waiver  expires.   The  servicemember  is  then
reweighed and placed back on the program and given a full 90  days  of
exercise and dietary counseling.  They further informed the  applicant
that this information was forwarded to his new squadron commander  who
had decided to disenroll the applicant from the WMP  and  restart  the
process without any negative impact on the applicant.   The  applicant
filed another IG complaint on 13 April  2004,  alleging  reprisal  for
filing the previous IG complaint.  The IG  office  on  13 April  2004,
informed the applicant his request was  being  dismissed  due  to  his
allegations being submitted more than 60 days after he became aware of
the reprisal.

The cycle 03E9 Chief Master Sergeant (CMSgt) Evaluation Board convened
on 6 October 2003.  The applicant’s board score for cycle  03E9  board
was 322.50.  His total  promotion  score  was  606.63  and  the  score
required for selection was 630.84.

On 7 April 2004, the applicant appealed the contested report under the
provisions of AFI 36-2401, Correcting Officer and Enlisted Evaluations
Reports.  The Evaluation Reports Appeal Board (ERAB) was not convinced
by the documentation submitted by the applicant and denied his request
on 7 May 2004.  The ERAB stated  the  applicant  did  not  submit  any
evidence to support voiding the  EPR.   The  documents  the  applicant
submitted did not appear to show collusion or reprisal.

EPR profile as a senior master sergeant reflects the following:

                 PERIOD ENDING               OVERALL EVALUATION

                    4 Mar 99                             5
                    4 Mar 00                       5
                   29 Dec 00                       5
                   29 Dec 01                       5
                  *11 Aug 02                       5
                   31 Jul 03                       5

* Contested report.

The applicant was selected for promotion to the grade of chief  master
sergeant by  cycle  04E9  Chief  Master  Sergeant  (CMSgt)  Evaluation
Boardv.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR STAFF EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPPE states the rating chain makes the final decision  regarding
what level of endorsement a report receives.  In the applicant’s case,
his rating chain decided the report would not have a SR endorsement on
his report.  The letter the applicant provided from Lieutenant Colonel
D. is admirable, however, he was not part of the rating chain  at  the
time the report closed out or part of the decision making  process  as
to what level the report would close out.  Furthermore,  senior  rater
endorsement is not an automatic  entitlement  of  time-in-grade  (TIG)
eligible senior noncommissioned officers (SNCOs).    Therefore,  based
on the evidence  submitted  they  recommend  denying  the  applicant’s
request.

AFPC/DPPPW states in accordance with  AFI  36-2502,  Airman  Promotion
Program and AFPC/DPP 081945Z Msg, supplemental promotion consideration
regarding EPRs is done on a case-by-case basis.  The member  will  not
be granted  supplemental  promotion  consideration  if  the  error  or
omission was reflected on their Data Verification Record (DVR)  or  in
the Unit Personnel Record Group (UPRG) and the member did not take the
necessary corrective action or follow up action  before  the  original
board convened.  This was accomplished to reduce the number of  "after
the fact" changes that are initiated  in  an  effort  to  get  another
opportunity for promotion.  The applicant did not seek a change to the
report through the ERAB  until  after  the  cycle  2003  Chief  Master
Sergeant (E9) cycle convened.

AFPC/DPPPW further stated the applicant's EPR was  considered  in  the
promotion process for the cycle 03E9 promotion  cycle.   They  further
stated that if the Board voids the EPR in its entirety, providing  the
applicant is otherwise eligible, the applicant would  be  entitled  to
supplemental consideration beginning with the 03E9 cycle.

A complete copy of the evaluation is attached at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR STAFF EVALUATION:

The applicant reviewed the Air Force evaluation and states he did file
an IG complaint, which he  included  with  his  application.   The  IG
office returned his  complaint  stating  he  exceeded  the  submission
timeline.

He further states the Air Staff evaluation ignores Maj J., the interim
718th commander who was in the immediate rating chain and was  charged
with the direct decision  of  what  level  to  close  the  report  and
submitted his EPR for a senior rater indorsement.

Yes, the meeting did take place to  discuss  the  situation,  however,
neither his interim commander, rater, nor he were included in  any  of
the meetings discussing his EPR.

He did not file immediately to the ERAB because it was recommended  to
him to file the IG reprisal  complaint  first.   Also,  his  immediate
rater had a permanent change of station and it took several months  to
receive the supporting documentation (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.    Sufficient relevant evidence has been presented  to  demonstrate
the existence  of  probable  error  or  injustice.   After  thoroughly
reviewing  the  documentation  submitted  with  this  appeal,  we  are
persuaded the contested report is not an accurate  reflection  of  the
applicant’s duty performance during the time period in  question.   In
this respect, the applicant filed  an  IG  complaint  regarding  being
erroneously placed on the WMP while under a doctor’s care and  the  IG
ruled in favor of the applicant.  Subsequently, the contested EPR  was
written.  The applicant filed  another  IG  complaint  about  the  EPR
issue, but was advised his allegations were not  investigated  because
his complaint had been filed more than 60 days after the date  he  had
become aware of the personnel action  that  was  the  subject  of  his
allegations.  In this respect, it appears the contested EPR closed out
on 11 August 2002 but was not finalized until 10 January 2003 when the
reviewer signed and dated the EPR; however, the  applicant  apparently
did not file  his  IG  complaint  until  26  March  2004.   We  cannot
determine with any degree  of  certainty  if  the  contested  EPR  was
written as a result of reprisal for filing the IG complaint.  Nor  can
we find any substantial evidence of  collusion  on  the  part  of  the
rating  chain.   However,  based  on  the  applicant’s  previous   and
subsequent performance reports,the performance  feedback  he  received
prior to the contested report, and the letter from the  rater  of  the
contested report, we are persuaded this  report  is  not  an  accurate
reflection of the applicant’s duty  performance.   In  coming  to  our
decision, we noted the unusual amount of time it took to  process  the
EPR to finalization.  Also, it appears  a  version  of  the  contested
report had been drafted with an SRI.  However, the  report  of  record
reflects  a  lower  endorsement  level--albeit  the  reason  for   the
downgrade cannot be determined.  Further, in our  opinion,  the  draft
version  of  the  EPR  presented  a  stronger  word  picture  of   the
applicant’s  duty  performance  during  the  contested  time   period.
Therefore, in view of the totality of the  circumstances,  we  believe
any doubt should be resolved in favor of the applicant.   Accordingly,
we recommend the contested report be declared void  and  removed  from
his records and he be provided supplemental promotion consideration.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:

The pertinent military records of the  Department  of  the  Air  Force
relating  to  APPLICANT,  be  corrected  to  show  that  the  Enlisted
Performance Report, AF Form 910, rendered for the  period  30 December
2001 through 11 August 2002, be declared void  and  removed  from  his
records.

It is further recommended that the applicant be provided  supplemental
consideration for promotion to the grade of chief master sergeant  for
all appropriate cycles beginning with cycle 03E9.

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 applicant 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.

If supplemental promotion consideration results in the  selection  for
promotion to the higher grade, immediately after  such  promotion  the
records shall be corrected to show that applicant was promoted to  the
higher grade on the date  of  rank  established  by  the  supplemental
promotion and that applicant is entitled to all pay,  allowances,  and
benefits of such grade as of that date.

_________________________________________________________________

The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket Number BC-
2004-02755  in  Executive  Session  on  12  January  2005,  under  the
provisions of AFI 36-2603:

            Ms. Martha J. Evans, Panel Chair
            Mr. Gregory A. Parker, Member
            Mr. Alan A. Blomgren, Member

All members  voted  to  correct  the  records,  as  recommended.   The
following documentary evidence was considered:

      Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 11 Sep 04, w/atchs.
      Exhibit B. Applicant's Enlisted Performance Reports.
      Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPPPE & AFPC/DPPPW, dated 13 Oct 04.
      Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 22 Oct 04.
      Exhibit E. Letter, Applicant’s Response, dated 19 Nov 04.




                       MARTHA J. EVANS
                       Panel Chair





AFBCMR BC-2004-02755



MEMORANDUM FOR THE CHIEF OF STAFF

      Having reviewed 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 the Enlisted
Performance Report, AF Form 910, rendered for the period of 30 December
2001 through 11 August 2002, be, and hereby is, declared void and
removed from his records.

      It is further directed that the applicant be provided
supplemental consideration for promotion to the grade of chief master
sergeant for all appropriate cycles beginning with cycle 03E9.

      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 applicant 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.

      If supplemental promotion consideration results in the selection
for promotion to the higher grade, immediately after such promotion
the records shall be corrected to show that applicant was promoted to
the higher grade on the date of rank established by the supplemental
promotion and that applicant is entitled to all pay, allowances, and
benefits of such grade as of that date.




                             JOE G. LINEBERGER
                             Director
                             Air Force Review Boards Agency