RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2006-00560
            INDEX NUMBER:  111.00
      XXXXXXX    COUNSEL:  None

      XXXXXXX    HEARING DESIRED:  No


MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:  21 Aug 07


_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

The enlisted performance report (EPR) rendered on him for  the  period
16 Dec 00 to 15 Dec 01 be voided and removed from his records.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He was given the contested EPR with an overall rating of “3,” a letter
of reprimand (LOR) and unfavorable information file (UIF) entry  based
on a false sexual harassment allegation.

All actions taken against him, with the  exception  of  the  contested
EPR, were removed when leadership learned the complainant  was  forced
against her will by his superintendent and her supervisor into writing
a false statement.

In support  of  his  appeal,  the  applicant  provides  9  attachments
consisting  of  a  letter  to  the  Board,  the  contested  EPR,  LOR,
performance feedback worksheet, his previous  EPR  ratings,  character
statements, and other documentation.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant entered active duty in the Air Force on 6 Feb 87.  He is
presently serving on active duty in the grade  of  technical  sergeant
(TSgt).  A resume of his last ten EPRs follows:

      Closeout Date                     Overall Rating

       30 Apr 97                        5
       30 Apr 98                        5
       15 Dec 98                        5
       15 Dec 99                        5
       15 Dec 00                        4
      *15 Dec 01                        3
       15 Dec 02                        5
       15 Dec 03                        5
       19 Oct 04                        5
       19 Oct 05                        5

* Contested EPR

The Evaluation Reports Appeal Board (ERAB)  denied  a  similar  appeal
from the applicant on 5 Jun 03.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPP recommends denial of the  applicant’s  request.   They  note
that the ERAB decision memo, dated 5 Jun 03, specifically explained to
the applicant that the best evidence to provide in a case like his  is
an  official  equal  opportunity  and  treatment  (EOT)  investigation
validated by the appropriate offices  or  an  inspector  general  (IG)
investigation.  The applicant failed  to  obtain  support  from  these
offices.

AFPC/DPPP further notes that the contested EPR does  not  mention  any
problems dealing with sexual harassment and that the same rater on the
contested report evaluated the applicant during  the  previous  period
and  documents  some  of  the  same  requirements   for   improvement.
AFPC/DPPP notes some of the  areas  the  rater  stated  the  applicant
needed improvement in, e.g.,  judgment,  professionalism,  etc.   They
point out that the areas marked down on the front of  the  applicant’s
EPR directly contribute to the “3” rating he received.

AFPC/DPPP also points out that the  ERAB  reviewed  a  memo  from  the
complainant the applicant alleges was  forced  into  writing  a  false
statement.  They indicate that the complainant stated the incident did
occur; however, she did not want to  write  a  statement  against  the
applicant since the situation was handled  between  them.   Therefore,
they conclude  that  the  allegation  against  the  applicant  is  not
completely false and since it was brought  to  the  attention  of  the
evaluator, they have the right  to  consider  it  in  rendering  their
evaluation.

The complete evaluation is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

In his response to the Air Force evaluation, applicant  notes  why  he
did not provide evidence  of  the  removal  of  the  LOR  and  UIF  he
initially received.  He now includes this information  as  well  as  a
copy of the memorandum that referred the report to him.
Applicant discusses how after the referral was  removed,  he  received
the three rating on the contested EPR  and  how  the  evidence  he  is
submitting strengthens his case that he was not going  to  receive  an
unbiased rating.  The applicant next addresses  AFPC/DPPP’s  statement
that the rater does not mention sexual harassment in  the  rating  but
refers to needed improvements such as judgment, professionalism,  etc.
The applicant considers these noted areas to  be  faulty.   He  states
that to improve in any of these areas he would have had to be  trained
properly, which he never was.  He indicates he had to be retrained  at
his next duty assignment.

The applicant states it was evident that he and his rater did not  see
eye-to-eye and allowed their personal feelings to impede the teamwork,
professionalism, and mission.  He states he  has  learned  a  valuable
lesson from all that happened and believes it would be a  travesty  to
his career if the contested EPR is allowed to remain  in  his  record.
He notes that he has since won several awards such as Wing NCO of  the
Quarter, Wing NCO of the Year, and Air  Force  Special  Operation  MEO
Individual of the Year.

In support of his response, applicant submits a copy of the memorandum
that originally referred the EPR to him and a  copy  of  a  memorandum
written during the time of the referral EPR by the airman he  had  the
incident with.

The applicant’s complete response, with attachments, is at Exhibit E.

The applicant submitted additional information to be included with his
response consisting of a statement written by the rater he worked  for
at the next  assignment  following  the  contested  EPR.   This  rater
discusses how actions were initiated by the applicant’s former unit to
remove the applicants Air Force  Specialty  Code  (AFSC)  in  the  MEO
career field and why he believes those actions to  be  improper.   The
rater states that although he  was  not  at  the  unit  the  applicant
experienced the problems leading to the contested  EPR,  the  lack  of
documented disciplinary actions in the applicant’s records  leads  him
to logically assume the applicant’s previous  rating  chain  had  some
sort of bias or dislike of the applicant and based  their  actions  on
this.  The rater notes the applicant’s stellar performance working for
him and opines that the rating on the contested EPR does  not  reflect
the individual he knows.

The applicant’s additional response is at Exhibit F.

_________________________________________________________________

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 probable error or injustice.  It appears to the  majority
of the Board that animosity between the applicant and  his  rater  may
have unjustly influenced the ratings he received on the contested EPR.
 After reviewing all of the available evidence of  record,  the  Board
finds it impossible to determine with absolute certainty what occurred
in this case.  However, because of the long term impact this  EPR  may
have, the majority believes  any  doubt  should  be  resolved  in  the
applicant’s favor.  In that regard, the majority of  the  Board  notes
that the  contested  rating  is  inconsistent  with  the  ratings  the
applicant received before and after the report.  The majority  further
notes the applicant has been rated at the highest level performing  in
the same career area his rating chain on the contested EPR deemed  him
unsuitable for.  Therefore, in the interest of equity and justice, the
majority of the Board recommends the applicant’s records be  corrected
as follows.

_________________________________________________________________

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, Air Force Form 910, rendered for  the  period  16
Dec 00 to 15 Dec 01, be declared void and removed from his records.

_________________________________________________________________

The following members of the Board considered Docket Number  BC-2006-
00560 in Executive Session on 20 April 2006, under the provisions  of
AFI 36-2603:

_________________________________________________________________

      Mr. Michael J. Maglio, Panel Chair
      Ms. Debra Walker, Member
      Mr. Elwood C. Lewis, III, Member

By a majority vote, the Board voted  to  grant  applicant’s  request.
Mr. Maglio voted to deny,  but  elected  not  to  submit  a  minority
report.  The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 21 Feb 06, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPPP, dated 10 Mar 06.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 17 Mar 06.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, Applicant, dated 27 Mar 06, w/atchs.
    Exhibit F.  Letter, Applicant, dated 1 Apr 06, w/atch.



                                   MICHAEL J. MAGLIO
                                   Panel Chair



AFBCMR BC-2006-00560

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, Air Force Form 910, rendered for the
period 16 Dec 00 to 15 Dec 01, be, and hereby is, declared void and
removed from his records.





                                        JOE G. LINEBERGER
                                        Director
                                        Air Force Review Boards Agency