RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2004-03357
                             INDEX CODE 111.03, 111.05
                             COUNSEL:  None

                             HEARING DESIRED:  Yes & No

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

The Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) for the period 16 Nov 00 through
31 Dec 01 be removed from his records.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He had about 30 days of supervision under the rater.  She  became  his
supervisor on 14 Nov 01, he went on leave on 15 Dec 01 and returned in
Jan 02 with a new supervisor.  He did not have a change  of  reporting
official (CRO) in Sep 01.  The rater was not stationed here  when  the
supposed feedback session occurred.  The additional rater  was  tasked
with writing his report with a closeout date of 15 Nov 01, his  annual
date.  Once the additional rater realized the report would be late, he
changed the closeout date to 31 Dec 01 and asked the  rater  to  write
the EPR.  The EPR is erroneous for two reasons: insufficient  days  of
supervision and an alleged feedback session that did not occur.   Only
the feedback issue has  been  addressed  by  the  Air  Force,  knowing
feedback is not enough to appeal a report.

Included in his submission is a statement from  a  technical  sergeant
who asserts that in a staff meeting on 14 Nov 01,  she  was  asked  to
change her and  the  applicant’s  reporting  official.   Further,  the
applicant’s EPR was due to close out on 15 Nov 01, but she was told to
re-project it out for 120 days to 13 Mar  02.   She  pointed  out  the
applicant had had three changes of reporting officials  and  his  last
report closed out in 2000 and his annual was due.  With  the  EPR  re-
projected to 2002, the applicant would not have a report in his record
for 2001.  The closeout date finally agreed upon was 31 Dec 01, rather
than 15 Nov 01.  The technical sergeant indicates this would give  the
rater enough time to write the report and meet the suspense date,  and
the applicant would have a performance report written for 2001.

Also submitted is a copy of an email status inquiry to the AFROTC  Det
320 commander, dated 3 Jan 02, advising  that  the  applicant  had  an
annual ERP closing out 15 Nov 01 and they had not received a  copy  of
the report, which should have been sent to them by 15 Dec 01.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant is currently serving, and during the  rating  period  in
question served, in the grade of staff sergeant assigned to the AFROTC
detachment 320 at Tulane University, New Orleans, LA.

The applicant’s last 10 performance reports have the  highest  overall
rating of 5, except for the contested 31 Dec 01 which had  an  overall
rating of 4.  In Section III, the applicant was rated with the  second
highest rating in four out of seven performance factors.  A profile is
provided below.

                       CLOSING DATE     OVERALL EVALUATION

                       31 Dec 03             5
                       31 Dec 02             5
                       31 Dec 01             4 (Contested)
                       15 Nov 00             5
                       31 Dec 99             5
                        1 May 99             5
                        1 May 98             5
                        1 May 97             5
                        1 May 96             5
                        1 May 95             5

The applicant filed a similar appeal under the provisions of  AFI  36-
2401.   His  application  indicated  he  did  not  get  a  performance
feedback.  He further contended he had only  48  days  of  supervision
with the rater of the 31 Dec 01 EPR, and that the  closeout  date  was
changed from 15 Nov 01 to 31  Dec  01.   He  requested  the  contested
report be voided and not reaccomplished.  Included in his appeal was a
17 Sep 01 memo for the record by the  EPR  additional  rater  advising
that [the rater of the contested EPR] arrived in Aug 01.

In  a  letter  dated  4  Oct  04,  the  ERAB  partially  approved  the
applicant’s appeal.  The ERAB directed the feedback date of 18 Jul  01
be removed and the statement “Ratee has substantiated written feedback
was not  accomplished  during  reporting  period”  be  placed  in  the
feedback block.  The  ERAB  considered  the  error  administrative  in
nature and did not void the EPR, considering it an accurate assessment
when rendered.  The ERAB’s decision letter did not discuss  the  other
issues with regard to the closeout date and  the  number  of  days  of
supervision.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

HQ AFPC/DPPPE indicates it appears there was a  previous  captain  who
left the unit, thus putting the applicant under the  colonel  for  his
rater.  When the new captain came in Jul 01, the  0-6  reassigned  the
applicant to the new captain as the  rater,  but  the  personnel  data
system (PDS) was not updated  to  reflect  the  changes  in  reporting
officials. When the EPR came due for the 0-6 to write, it was realized
the rater had not been updated to reflect the new captain.   Once  the
Commander Support Staff realized the error, the  technician  corrected
it immediately.  This is an administrative error that did  not  affect
the report.  Thus, the EPR should not be voided.   They  do  recommend
the report’s closeout date be extended from 31 Dec 01 to 2 Jan  02  to
include 120 days of supervision.

The following information from HQ AFPC/DPPPW was incorporated  in  the
advisory:  The first time the report was used in the promotion process
was cycle 02E6.  If  the  EPR  is  removed,  the  applicant  would  be
entitled to supplemental promotion consideration beginning with  cycle
02E6.  However, he would not become a selectee for technical  sergeant
in cycles 02E6 or 03E6 as his score would not increase sufficiently to
meet the promotion cutoff score required for those cycles.   He  would
become a selectee for cycle 04E6 pending favorable  data  verification
and the commander’s recommendation.

A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant contends that 95% of his case before the ERAB was  based
on not enough days of supervision to write a  report.   He  has  found
nothing in governing directives that allows tampering with a  feedback
date--if caught just use liquid paper and press on.  His annual report
was due in Nov 01, not Dec 01.  In Sep 01, they did not have personnel
reassigned,  work  centers  reorganized,  function  areas   or   units
realigned, etc., as alleged by the advisory.  If  the  captain  became
his new rater  in  Jul  01,  as  AFPC  alleges,  the  number  of  days
supervision would be 180, not 120.  The closeout date would be 15  Nov
01, not 31 Dec 01.  Why was the closeout date changed and why for only
120 days?  Why are they suggesting the closeout date be changed  to  2
Jan 02?  Look at his 31 Dec 02 EPR--a total of four EPRs would have to
be changed.  The feedback date was fake, as is the closeout  date  and
the number of days supervised.  If the only way he can get this report
removed is with a letter from the additional rater who did this,  then
he is condemned.

A complete copy of applicant’s response 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.    Sufficient relevant evidence has been presented  to  demonstrate
the existence of error or injustice to warrant voiding  the  contested
EPR.  If the applicant received a new rater in Jul 01 as the Air Force
asserts, then the EPR’s reporting period should be for 180  days,  not
120.  If the “120 days” reflected on the report is accurate, then  the
closing date should not need to “. . . be extended  to  2  Jan  02  to
include  120  days  supervision.”   Most  notable  was  the  technical
sergeant’s statement, which confirmed the EPR’s closing date initially
was to be re-projected out to 13 Mar  02,  and  then  was  changed  to
15 Dec 01 to give the new rater time to meet the  suspense  and  still
give the applicant a performance report for 2001.  The  applicant  has
already established that feedback  was  not  accomplished  during  the
rating period, as the EPR had  originally  stated,  and  we  note  the
closing date was never addressed by the ERAB.  In the final  analysis,
the applicant has made a stronger case to remove the contested  report
than the Air Force has made to retain it.  We are persuaded the 31 Dec
01 EPR is sufficiently questionable that it  should  be  removed,  and
this we so recommend.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD RECOMMENDS 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 16 November
2000 through 31 December 2000, be declared void and removed from his
records.

It  is  further  recommended  that  he  be   provided   supplemental
consideration for promotion to the grade of master sergeant for  all
the appropriate cycles beginning with cycle 02E6.

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.

_________________________________________________________________

The following members of the  Board  considered  this  application  in
Executive Session on 3 February 2005 under the provisions of  AFI  36-
2603:

                             Mr. Thomas S. Markiewicz, Chair
                             Ms. Renee M. Collier, Member
                             Ms. Cheryl V. Jacobson, Member

All members  voted  to  correct  the  records,  as  recommended.   The
following documentary evidence relating to AFBCMR  Docket  Number  BC-
2004-03357 was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 26 Oct 04, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPPE, dated 9 Dec 04.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 17 Dec 04.
   Exhibit E.  Letter, Applicant, dated 29 Dec 04.




                                  THOMAS S. MARKIEWICZ
                                  Chair





AFBCMR BC-2004-03357




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 the Enlisted Performance Report, AF Form 910, rendered for the
period 16 November 2000 through 31 December 2000, 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 master sergeant for all
the appropriate cycles beginning with cycle 02E6.

            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.





   JOE G. LINEBERGER

   Director

   Air Force Review Boards Agency