RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2005-00313
            INDEX CODE:  111.05
            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO

MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:  29 MAY 2006

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) rendered for the  period  16 May  2003
through 30 September 2003 be removed from his record.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The cut-off date for the EPR was 30 September 2003; however, the report  was
not signed until February 2004.  Also, the concur/non-concur  block  in  the
reviewer’s comments was not marked.  His rating chain  was  given  incorrect
guidance.

In support of the application, the applicant submits a copy  of  his  appeal
to the Evaluation Reports Appeal  Board  (ERAB),  including  copies  of  the
contested report, his  Performance  Feedback  Worksheet  and  statements  of
support from his rating chain.  The applicant's  complete  submission,  with
attachments, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant’s military personnel records were not  provided.   Information
extracted from the Military Personnel Data System  indicates  the  applicant
was relieved from active duty in the grade of master sergeant on 31  January
1999 and retired for length of service on 1 February 1999.  He was  credited
with approximately 20 years, 2 months and 24 days of  active  duty  service.
Prior to his retirement, the applicant received three EPRs in the  grade  of
master sergeant in which the Promotion  Recommendations  were  “5”  and  the
evaluations of his performance (front-side  markings)  were  all  “firewall”
ratings.

The applicant reentered active duty on 16 May 2003  and  was  released  from
active duty on 15 May 2005, on which date, he reverted  to  retired  status.
He is credited with 22 years, 2 months and 24 days for pay and 22 years  and
1 day of total active duty service.   During  this  period  of  active  duty
service, the applicant received two  EPRs.   The  first  was  the  contested
report, closing 30 September 2003, with a Promotion  Recommendation  of  “4”
with markdowns in the performance factors of job knowledge and  professional
qualities.  The second was a report closing 30 September 2004, in which  the
Promotion Recommendation was “5” and  the  evaluations  of  his  performance
were all “firewall” ratings.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

HQ AFPC/DPPP recommends denial of the applicant’s request.  DPPP  notes  the
application was timely.  DPPP states the applicant  filed  an  appeal  under
the provisions of AFI 36-2401,  Correcting  Officer  and  Enlisted  Reports.
Based on  the  support  from  the  applicant’s  evaluators,  the  Evaluation
Reports Appeal Board (ERAB) requested the  applicant  provide  a  substitute
report; however he chose not to provide one.

The rater states she began supervision in May 2003 and was notified in  late
November that a report was overdue.   She  requested  information  from  the
squadron  command  section  for  non-completion  of  Senior  Noncommissioned
Officer Academy and was told the report would close out at the  group  based
on the circumstances.  She was also told the applicant was  not  immediately
promotable and could not get an overall  “5”  rating  on  the  EPR  and  the
commander would not concur with a “5”  rating.   Based  on  the  information
provided to her, she changed the overall rating to a “4.”

The  regulation  states  “evaluators  should  discuss   disagreements   when
preparing reports.  Prior evaluators  are  first  given  an  opportunity  to
change the evaluation; however, they will not change their  evaluation  just
to satisfy the evaluator who disagrees.”  DPPP  explains  the  rater  should
have contacted the MPF for  further  clarification;  but  instead  opted  to
change the rating.  DPPP states a report can only be signed on or after  the
close out date; therefore, the signature dates are not in  error.   Although
the applicant does not state the lateness of the report  caused  the  report
to be inaccurate,  the  rater  provided  the  reason  that  the  report  was
submitted after the close out date.   DPPP  states  the  applicant  has  the
support of all his evaluators, and should  have  the  evaluators  provide  a
substitute report with all  his  requested  changes.   However,  it  is  the
evaluators’ responsibility to complete a report as they feel appropriate.

DPPP explains marking the concur/nonconcur block is a minor discrepancy  and
can be corrected at the military personnel flight (MPF).  Additionally,  the
reviewer provided a  memo  stating  his  concurrence  with  the  information
provided on the report.  DPPP notes that based on the  supporting  documents
from all evaluators,  they  should  provide  a  substitute  report  with  an
overall “5” rating.  The evaluators stated their mistake was in the  overall
rating not the overall assessment and the comments on  the  report  were  in
fact accurate and reflected the true performance of the member.

DPPP explains supplemental promotion consideration is granted on a  case-by-
case basis for reasons listed in table 2.5.  A member will not  normally  be
granted supplemental consideration if the  error  or  omission  appeared  on
his/her Data Verification Record (DVR) or in the Unit Personal Group  (UPRG)
and the individual did not take the  appropriate  corrective  or  follow  up
action before the original board convened.  The purpose of  this  change  is
to reduce the number of “after the fact” changes that are  initiated  in  an
effort to get a second opportunity for promotion.   The  applicant  did  not
pursue the change to this EPR through the ERAB until 9  August  2004,  after
the boards convened for the Central and Supplemental 04E8 cycle (26  January
and 10 May 2004).  DPPP states the first time  the  contested  report  would
have normally been considered  in  the  promotion  process  was  cycle  04E8
(Central SMSgt Evaluation Board).  However, the applicant  was  nonweighable
due to his top EPR (30 September 2003) not being on file.  He therefore  met
the SNCO Supplemental Board on 10 May 04 and was rendered a nonselect.   His
total  weighted  score  was  226.04  (including   a   USAFSE   (supervisor’s
examination) score of 26.04) and he required a board score of 435.00  to  be
selected.  As a matter of information, 450.00 is the highest board  score  a
person can receive.

DPPP’s evaluation is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the Air Force  evaluation  was  forwarded  to  the  applicant  for
review and comment on 25 March 2005.  As  of  this  date,  this  office  has
received no response (Exhibit D).

_________________________________________________________________

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   reviewing   the   evidence   provided,
specifically the statements by the rating chain  of  the  contested  report,
the board majority believes the ratings on the contested report  were  based
on  inappropriate  considerations   rather   than   the   applicant’s   duty
performance.  All parties unanimously indicated that  the  ratings  did  not
accurately reflect the applicant’s performance.  We  believe  any  doubt  in
this matter should be resolved in favor of the applicant and  conclude  that
the contested report should be removed from his records, and  he  should  be
given supplemental promotion consideration to the grade of senior master.
_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT:

The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air  Force  relating
to APPLICANT be corrected to  show  that  the  Senior  Enlisted  Performance
Report, AF Form 911 (MSgt through CMSgt), rendered for  the  period  16  May
2003 through 30 September 2003 be, and is hereby declared void  and  removed
from his records.

It is further recommended that he  be  provided  supplemental  consideration
for  promotion  to  the  grade  of  senior  master  sergeant  for  all   the
appropriate cycles beginning with cycle 04E8.

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 25 August 2005 and 13 September 2005,  under  the  provisions  of
AFI 36-2603:

                 Mr. Gregory H. Petkoff, Panel Chair
                 Ms. Sharon B. Seymour, Panel Member
                 Ms. Jean A. Reynolds, Panel Member

By a majority vote, the members voted to approve  the  request.   Ms. Sharon
B. Seymour voted to deny the application but did  not  desire  to  submit  a
minority report.  The  following  documentary  evidence  was  considered  in
AFBCMR BC-2005-00313:

      Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 18 Jan 05 w/atchs.
      Exhibit B.  Applicant’s Master Personnel Records.
      Exhibit C.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPP dated 14 Mar 05.
      Exhibit D.  Letters, SAF/MRBR, dated 25 Mar 05.
      Exhibit E.  Letter, Applicant, dated 25 Apr 05.




            GREGORY H. PETKOFF
            Panel Chair


AFBCMR BC-2005-00313


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 to show that the Senior Enlisted
Performance Report, AF Form 911 (MSgt through CMSgt), rendered for the
period 16 May 2003 through 30 September 2003 be, and is hereby 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 the appropriate cycles beginning with the 04E8 cycle.

      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