RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2005-02670
            INDEX CODE:  111.02
      XXXXXXX    COUNSEL:  NONE

      XXXXXXX    HEARING DESIRED:  YES


MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:  28 FEBRUARY 2007


_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

The Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) rendered for  the  period     1  March
2003 to 29 February 2004, be upgraded or voided from his records.
_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The  performance  report  was  written  without  rater  or   rater’s   rater
supervision for a ten-month period. He was working in “duty out  of  control
status” for said rating period. Actual supervisors, SMSgt L__ and SMSgt  S__
both   recommended   an   “immediate   promotion”   rating   and   requested
administrative change of rating actions to ensure fair reporting practice.

In support of his application, the applicant provides copies of emails,  and
a complete copy of the Evaluation Reports Appeal Board (ERAB) package.

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

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force as an  airman  basic  on  29
December 1998, and currently serves in the grade of staff sergeant.

A profile of the applicant’s EPR’s follows:

                   PERIOD ENDINGS                  OVERALL RATING


                  8 Mar 05                      5

              *  29 Feb 04                      4

                 28 Feb 03                      5

                 28 Feb 02                      5

                 28 Feb 01                      4

                 28 Feb 00                      5

* Contested report

On 1 August 2005, the ERAB denied the  applicant’s  request  to  remove  the
EPR. The board was not convinced the original report was  unjust  or  wrong.
The board works under the assumption that evaluation  reports  are  accurate
and objective.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPPE recommends denial and states the Air Force does not  require  the
designated rater be the immediate supervisor. Subsequent evaluators are  not
required to have “first-hand knowledge” of the ratee.  Raters  are  required
to obtain information from as many sources as possible, especially when  the
rater  cannot  observe  the  ratee  personally.  Subsequent  evaluators  are
encouraged to do the same. The  rater  obtained  information  from  the  LOE
provided by SMSgt L__  and  the  rater  assessed  the  member  in  the  most
appropriate way possible. The member seems to disagree with the  ratings  by
stating the ratings  do  not  match  the  ratings  provided  by  SMSgt  L__.
However, a Letter of Evaluation (LOE) does not contain  ratings.  Therefore,
the applicant’s assertion is unfounded.

AFPC/DPPPE has reviewed MILPDS and it shows the rater’s supervision began  1
March 2003. Additionally, no days of supervision were deducted  due  to  the
ratee not performing normal duties for  the  purpose  of  PME,  TDY,  leave,
patient status, AWOL, or  confinement.  Although  the  applicant  worked  in
different sections, his rater remained TSgt  C__  and  there  was  no  proof
provided to show TSgt C__ was not able to provide a fair assessment  on  the
individual.

AFPC/DPPPE’s complete evaluation is at Exhibit C.
_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Applicant reviewed the Air Force evaluation and asks  the  Board  to  please
accept his apologies for the dogged determination with which he has  pursued
this matter; however, he believes the principles behind fair  reporting  are
worth the struggle. Enlisted performance reporting must be  fair,  unbiased,
and non-coerced if the Air Force expects to  retain  and  promote  the  very
best people. Up to this point, he has omitted many statements made  by  both
the  rater  and  first  sergeant  in  an  attempt  to  protect  their   good
reputation.  However, it is now important for him to highlight the  coercive
and prejudicial nature of their  reporting  habits  within  a  hostile  work
environment.  His enlisted performance report was written without  feedback,
was coerced, and  intentionally  disregarded  the  basic  principles  behind
using the letter of evaluation (LOE) as an evaluatory aid to the rater.

He has been told many times that a  “four”  EPR  is  impossible  to  refute,
because in reality it marks the ratee  as  an  exceptional  performer.  This
kind of thinking seems to avoid dealing  with  the  real-life  specifics  of
this case. The Enlisted Performance Report in question  was  written  in  an
environment replete with coercion, without supervision  or  feedback.  While
Col H__ states that the applicant has since  been  promoted  to  TSgt  on  a
second attempt, Col H__ fails to  address  the  fact  that  the  applicant’s
first attempt failed due to complete  demoralization  as  a  result  of  the
failed reporting process covering ten months  of  exceptional  labor.  After
some recovery, he did test higher than  99.87  percent  of  all  re-training
eligibles on his second attempt during cycle 05E6, but in his  opinion  that
event should reflect more on his ability  to  recover  from  poor  reporting
than to excuse it. He will continue  to  work  diligently  to  produce  high
quality work for the Air Force and  the  young  people  around  him.  He  is
convinced that he would be failing as an NCO if  he  did  not  contest  poor
reporting practices as they affect him or his troops,  and  it  is  in  that
spirit that he humbly continues this protest.

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 an injustice warranting removal of  the  applicant's  contested
performance  report.   The  Board  noted  that  the  documentation  provided
contains evidence the applicant was given an order not to have  any  contact
with his duty section, his rater and additional rater.   This  suggest  some
form of conflict existed between the applicant  and  his  rating  chain  and
that the contested report may have been based  on  factors  other  than  the
applicant's duty performance and demonstrated potential.    In view  of  the
foregoing,  and  in  recognition  of  applicant’s  previous  and  subsequent
performance, the Board believes that  sufficient  doubt  exists  as  to  the
accuracy of the report.  Therefore,  to  eliminate  any  possibility  of  an
injustice to the applicant, the Board recommends  the  EPR  in  question  be
declared void and removed from his  records.   In  addition,  his  corrected
record be reconsidered for promotion to the grade of technical sergeant  for
all appropriate cycles.
_________________________________________________________________

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  (AB
through TSgt), AF Form 910, rendered for the period 1 March 2003 through  29
February 2004 be,  and  hereby  is,  declared  void  and  removed  from  his
records.

It is further recommended that he  be  provided  supplemental  consideration
for promotion to the grade of technical sergeant for all appropriate  cycles
beginning with cycle 04E6.

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.

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 he was promoted to the higher grade  on  the
date of rank established by  the  supplemental  promotion  and  that  he  is
entitled to all pay, allowances, and benefits  of  such  grade  as  of  that
date.

_________________________________________________________________

The following members of the Board considered  Docket  Number  BC-2005-03503
in Executive Session on 8 February 2006, under the  provisions  of  AFI  36-
2603:

      Mr. Thomas S. Markiewicz, Chair
      Ms. Dorothy P. Loeb, Member
      Ms. Barbara R. Murray, Member

     Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 15 Aug 05, w/Atchs.
     Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
     Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPE, dated 13 Oct 05.
     Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 21 Oct 05.
     Exhibit E.  Letter, Applicant, dated 24 Oct 05, w/Atchs.




                                  THOMAS S. MARKIEWICZ
                                  Chair


AFBCMR BC-2005-02670




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
Enlisted Performance Report (AB through TSgt), AF Form 910, rendered
for the period 1 March 2003 through 29 February 2004 be, and hereby
is, declared void and removed from his records.

      It is further recommended that he be provided supplemental
consideration for promotion to the grade of staff sergeant for all
appropriate cycles beginning with cycle 98E5.

      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.

      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 he was promoted to the
higher grade on the date of rank established by the supplemental
promotion and that he is entitled to all pay, allowances, and benefits
of such grade as of that date.








     JOE G. LINEBERGER

     Director

     Air Force Review Boards Agency