RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2005-00603
            INDEX CODE: 111.02, 111.05
            COUNSEL:  None

            HEARING DESIRED:  Yes

MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:  21 Aug 06

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

The Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) for the period ending  1 Jan  02
be removed from her records.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

This EPR was not objective because  of  the  impact  of  an  isolated,
unsubstantiated  incident,  the  omission  of  pertinent   performance
information, and inconsistencies between the EPR and  the  Performance
Feedback Worksheet (PFW) as well as the rater’s markings and comments.
 Further, the commander was junior in grade to  the  rater;  the  11th
Wing Squadron Section commander should have  reviewed  the  EPR.   She
received a Letter of Counseling (LOC) 30 days from the closeout of the
EPR for allegedly withholding information from a  civilian  co-worker.
When evidence and witnesses showed the accusation was unsubstantiated,
the supervisor still let the LOC stand.  The supervisor  did  this  to
impact the EPR.  She was the first person to occupy a new position  in
a new program in the Air Force.  She was given no training and held to
different standards than her co-workers.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

According to HQ AFPC/DPPPEP, G-series orders allow a person to act  in
the capacity of the commander, giving them administrative jurisdiction
for that unit (i.e., Article 15, Unfavorable Information File,  Letter
of  Reprimand,  LOC).   AFI  36-2406,  para.  3.2.5.8.   states   “the
commander’s review may be  conducted  by  the  commander  or  squadron
section commander (or, in their absence, an officer so designated on G-
series orders)  for  administrative  purposes  (i.e.,  control  roster
action,  Article  15  jurisdiction,  etc.)  of  the  ratee’s  assigned
organization.  Flight commanders do not qualify.”  Table 3.2., Note 10
indicates that if the commander is junior in  grade  to  an  evaluator
(other than the rater), the commander reviews the  report  before  the
higher-ranking evaluator signs it.  The review  is  performed  by  the
unit or squadron section commander of the unit in which the  ratee  is
assigned as a permanent party member.

During the period in question, the applicant  was  a  master  sergeant
(date of rank: 1 Dec 99) assigned  for  four  months  to  the  Women’s
Health Flight 55 MDG, at Offutt AFB, NE, and then as the International
Health Specialist (IHS) Program NCOIC with the AF Med HFO  Support  ME
at Bolling AFB, DC.  The rater of the  contested  EPR  was  a  colonel
assigned  to  the  HQ  USAF/SGT  as  the  IHS  Program  Manager.   The
additional rater was also a colonel assigned to the HQ USAF/SGT as the
Director, Surgeon’s Tactical Action Team/IHS Program.   The  signature
of the individual who signed as the commander’s  review  is  illegible
and the position is indicated as intermediate level.

On 14 Dec 01, the rater gave the applicant a LOC because  she  “either
intentionally withheld information or misstated the  facts”  regarding
the IHS access database.  The  rater  believed  the  applicant  either
caused a teammate to spend numerous hours working on  a  database  she
allegedly had but did not share,  or  the  document  she  alleged  had
already been developed earlier had, in fact, not been created at  that
time.  The applicant provided a rebuttal on 16 Dec 01, explaining that
if a document is copied or saved to another folder it  will  create  a
new “Create” date.  The original creation date was 22 Jun 01; however,
the rater had observed the  new  creation  date  of  13 Dec  01.   The
technical sergeant who assisted the applicant in creating the database
provided a memo confirming that the document was initiated in Jun  01.
IHF Teleconference minutes, dated 12 Jul 01, reflect the applicant had
created the database.  In a 2 Jan 02 response, the rater countered the
applicant’s contentions and noted the incident  was  indicative  of  a
trend in her behavior.

On 5 Aug  02,  the  11th  Wing  Inspector  General  (IG)  advised  the
applicant that complainants must contact the  IG  within  60  days  of
learning of an alleged wrongdoing,  unless  there  were  extraordinary
circumstances justifying the delay.  The IG  dismissed  her  complaint
based on timeliness and the potential to gather sufficient  facts  and
circumstances surrounding the alleged wrongdoing. See Exhibit E.

A 26 Aug 02 email from the Chief, Military Equal Opportunity,  WG/MEO,
to the applicant advised that her allegations of racial discrimination
against the rater did not deal with anything of a  racial  matter  but
with supervisory and possibly abuse of authority  by  her  supervisor.
See Exhibit E.

On 29 Aug 02, the 11th Wing Deputy Chief of MEO at Bolling AFB advised
the applicant that, although her allegations  against  her  rater  may
very well have occurred, she was unable to establish that the  alleged
disparaging treatment occurred due to race,  color,  national  origin,
religious beliefs or sex.  Therefore, her  allegations  could  not  be
addressed through MEO channels but should be addressed through command
channels, i.e., USAF/SG leadership.  See Exhibit E.

On 4  Oct  02,  the  applicant  submitted  a  similar  appeal  to  the
Evaluation Reports Appeal Board (ERAB), which was denied.

A profile of the applicant’s EPRs follows:

      PERIOD ENDING    OVERALL EVALUATION

        28 Apr 95                                     5
        28 Apr 96                                     5
        28 Mar 97                                     5
         2 Oct 97                                     5
        30 Jul 98                                     5
         1 Jan 99                                     5
         1 Jan 00                                     5
         1 Jan 01                                     5
         1  Jan  02                                      4  (Contested
Report)
         1 Jan 03                                     5
         5 Sep 03                                     5
         5 Sep 04                                     5

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

HQ AFPC/DPPP contends  the  applicant  failed  to  provide  supporting
documentation  relating  to  the  unfair  treatment.    A   supporting
memorandum from an individual was hearsay as he did not personally see
the problem.  The rater has the option not to include  information  as
well as to include information not previously considered.   The  rater
wrote the EPR covering the entire reporting period, which can  include
information from a previous assignment as long as it  was  within  the
reporting  period  and  not  considered  for  the  last  report.   The
applicant failed to provide support determining  whether  or  not  the
commander was, in fact, on G-series orders during the time the  report
was signed.  She states the report should have been  reviewed  by  the
Command Chief Master Sergeant (CMSgt).   Air  Force  policy  does  not
require the review of the  Command  CMSgt.   Some  base  policies  may
require the review if the report requires  senior  rater  endorsement;
however, the  applicant’s  report  did  not  warrant  a  senior  rater
endorsement.  Denial is recommended.

A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant  advises  she  filed  MEO  and  IG  complaints  but  her
complaints were dismissed.  The contested EPR was reviewed and  signed
by a commander  not  on  G-series  orders,  it  did  not  receive  the
appropriate quality assurance review that it should have received, and
the commander was junior to her rater and thus could have succumbed to
pressure/influence from a higher ranking  officer  (the  rater).   The
Board should take into consideration her entire career, that “much  of
what occurred was due to poor management,”  her  former  position  was
changed for a different skill set/career field, and the  rater  abused
her and a former co-worker (who was also female and black).   The  EPR
was a form of reprisal and not written objectively or fairly.

A complete copy of the applicant’s 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.    Sufficient relevant evidence has been presented  to  demonstrate
the existence of error or injustice to warrant voiding  the  contested
EPR.  While  the  applicant  does  not  provide  statements  from  the
pertinent rating chain members,  the  available  evidence  appears  to
indicate the rater’s assessment of some of her subordinates  may  have
been influenced by her personal feelings.  The applicant’s explanation
of the circumstances that led to the LOC, and the technical sergeant’s
confirming statement, raises the possibility that  this  incident  may
have been  the  result  of  misunderstanding  rather  than  deliberate
withholding of information.  Further, the former secretary’s statement
regarding  her  own  circumstances  suggests  a  possible  pattern  of
supervisory favoritism and prejudice by the rater.  Most  telling  was
the fact that the applicant was asked to return to this position  when
the new IHS Program Manager took  over,  and  the  Chief  of  Enlisted
Issues indicated he was convinced that much of what took place was  in
part due to “poor  management  and  communication.”   The  applicant’s
record of performance is otherwise exemplary, and the contested report
seems, in our view, to be out of character.  In  order  to  avoid  the
possibility of an injustice, we conclude any doubt should be  resolved
in this applicant’s favor.  We  therefore  recommend  her  records  be
corrected as indicated below.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT:

The pertinent military records of the Department of  the  Air  Force
relating to the APPLICANT be  corrected  to  show  that  the  Senior
Enlisted Performance Report, AF Form 911, rendered  for  the  period
2 January 2001 through 1 January 2002, be declared void and  removed
from her records.

It  is  further  recommended  that  she  be  provided   supplemental
consideration for promotion to the grade of senior  master  sergeant
for all the 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  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 16 June 2005 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

                 Ms. Martha J. Evans, Panel Chair
                 Mr. Alan A. Blomgren, Member
                 Mr. Jay H. Jordan, Member

All members  voted  to  correct  the  records,  as  recommended.   The
following documentary evidence relating to AFBCMR  Docket  Number  BC-
2005-00603 was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 9 Feb 02, received 16 Feb 05,
                       w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPP, dated 16 Mar 05.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 1 Apr 05.
   Exhibit E.  Letter, Applicant, dated 27 Apr 05, w/atchs.




                                   MARTHA J. EVANS
                                   Panel Chair

AFBCMR BC-2005-00603




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 Senior Enlisted
Performance Report, AF Form 911, rendered for the period 2 January
2001 through 1 January 2002, be, and hereby is, declared void and
removed from her records.

      It is further directed that she be provided supplemental
consideration for promotion to the grade of senior master sergeant for
all the 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 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