RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2006-00202
                       INDEX CODE:  111.02

                       COUNSEL:  JOHNSON COUNTY
                                     VETERANS OFFICER

                       HEARING DESIRED:  NOT INDICATED

MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:  23 JUL 07

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

The Airman Performance Reports (APRs) rendered for the periods  ending
9 July 1977 and 30 April 1978 be upgraded or removed from his records.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

These reports do not  reflect  an  accurate  assessment  of  his  duty
performance.  He further believes  he  would  have  been  promoted  to
senior master sergeant (SMSgt) in 1979 if these reports had  not  been
marked down.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force (RegAF) on 12 February
1954, in the grade of airman (Amn) for a period of four years.

The applicant received a referral report for the period ending  9 July
1977.  The applicant did not file an appeal under  the  provisions  of
AFI 36-2401, Correcting Officer and Enlisted Evaluation Reports.

The applicant’s performance report profile as  an  MSgt  reflects  the
following:

                 PERIOD ENDING               OVERALL EVALUATION

                       9 Jul 76                          9
                  *  **9 Jul 77                          8
                 PERIOD ENDING               OVERALL EVALUATION

                     *30 Apr 78                          8
                      30 Apr 79                          9

* Contested Reports.
** Referral Report

The applicant was honorably retired on 1 March  1980.   He  served  26
years and 19 days of active duty service.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPPEP states the applicant  has  failed  to  provide  supporting
evidence to prove his reports were inaccurate.  Air  Force  policy  is
that an evaluation report is accurate as written  when  it  becomes  a
matter of record.  They further state,  to  effectively  challenge  an
EPR, it is imperative to hear from all the members of the rating chain-
-not only for support, but also  for  clarification  and  explanation.
The applicant has not provided any information or  documented  support
from his rating chain on any of the contested reports.  In the absence
of information from evaluators, official substantiation  of  error  or
injustice  from  the  Inspector  General  (IG)   or   Military   Equal
Opportunity is appropriate, but has not have been provided  with  this
case.

Furthermore, disagreements in the work place are not  unusual  and  in
themselves, do not substantiate  an  evaluator  cannot  be  objective.
They further state if there was a  personality  conflict  between  the
applicant and the rater which was of such magnitude  the  rater  could
not be objective, they believe the additional rater would  have  known
about it since the APR indicates the rater and additional  rater  were
assigned to the same location.  Moreover, if  a  personality  conflict
were  as  evident  as  the  applicant  perceived,  they  believe   the
additional rater would have made any necessary  adjustment(s)  to  the
applicant’s APR.  The applicant has not  provided  specific  instances
based on firsthand observation which  substantiates  the  relationship
between the applicant and his rater  was  strained  to  the  point  an
objective evaluation was impossible.

They further state for a enlisted servicemember to be  considered  for
promotion to senior master sergeant (SMSgt),  the  servicemember  must
have 24 months time-in-grade, possess a 7- or 9-skill level air  force
specialty code (AFSC), 11 years total active federal military  service
(TAFMS), 8 years cumulative enlisted service creditable for basic pay,
qualified under United States Air Force Supervisory Exam (USAFSE), and
be recommended by the promotion authority.   These  were  the  minimum
eligibility requirements to be considered by the promotion  board  but
in no way ensured or guaranteed a promotion.

Based on the applicant’s date of rank (DOR) to MSgt, as well as  other
minimum criteria (minus the recommendation of the commander),  he  was
eligible for consideration beginning with 79S8.  DPPPEP has no way  of
knowing whether the promotion authority  would  have  recommended  the
applicant’s promotion consideration during this cycle  since  the  top
report was a referral.  The promotion eligibility cutoff  date  (PECD)
for cycle 79S8  was  December  1977,  only  the  9  July  1977  report
(referral) would have met the PECD requirements for inclusion  in  the
record.  The 30 April 1978 report would have met the PECD requirements
for cycle 80S8.  DPPPEP was unable to verify whether the applicant was
considered for promotion to SMSgt as promotion history files are  only
maintained for a period of 10 years.

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

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the  applicant  on
17 March 2006, for review and response.  As of this date, no  response
has been received by this office.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

1.    The applicant has exhausted all remedies  provided  by  existing
law or regulations.

2.    The application was not timely filed;  however,  it  is  in  the
interest of justice to excuse the failure to timely file.

3.    Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate
the existence of an error or an  injustice.   Applicant’s  contentions
are duly noted; however, we do not find these assertions,  in  and  by
themselves, sufficiently persuasive to override the rationale provided
by the appropriate office of the Air Force.   The  applicant  did  not
provide persuasive evidence to establish the  contested  reports  were
not an accurate reflection of his performance.  Each evaluator has the
obligation  when  writing  the  performance  report  to  consider  any
incidents of substandard duty performance and the significance of  the
substandard  performance  in  assessing  the  servicemember's  overall
performance and potential.  In this respect, it appears the statements
regarding the applicant’s supervisory performance were the  basis  for
the contested reports.  The applicant has not submitted any persuasive
evidence showing the raters’ assessment of his supervisory skills  was
inappropriately reflected on the reports in question.  Furthermore, it
appears the applicant was provided ample counseling and  opportunities
to improve his supervisory skills.  We therefore adopt the Air Force's
rationale expressed as the basis for our decision that  the  applicant
has failed to sustain his burden that he has suffered either an  error
or an injustice.  Hence, we find  no  compelling  basis  to  recommend
granting the relief sought.

_________________________________________________________________

The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket Number BC-
2006-00202 in Executive Session on 4 May 2006, under the provisions of
AFI 36-2603:

                 Mr. Wayne R. Gracie, Chair
                 Mr. Alan A. Blomgren, Member
                 Ms. B. J. White-Olson, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

      Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 11 Jun 06, w/atchs.
      Exhibit B. Applicant's Enlisted Performance Reports.
      Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPPPEP, dated 10 Mar 06.
      Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 17 Mar 06.




                       WAYNE R. GRACIE
                       Panel Chair