RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2006-03085
            INDEX CODE:  111.05

                             COUNSEL:  NOT INDICATED

            HEARING DESIRED:  YES

MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:   9 APR 2008

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

The Enlisted Performance Reports (EPRs) closing out on 29 January  1997  and
30 December 1998 be declared void and removed  from  her  records,  and  she
receive supplemental promotion consideration and pay and allowances.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The referral reports were the result of  a  personal  vendetta  to  end  her
career.

In support of her request, the applicant provided AF Form  948,  Application
for  Correction/Removal  of  Evaluation  Reports,  background  documentation
related to her  appeal  to  the  Evaluation  Reports  Appeal  Board  (ERAB),
Excerpts from  her  Military  Personnel  Records,  a  series  of  emails,  a
Statement of Support, and a copy of an AF Form  707A,  Field  Grade  Officer
Performance Report.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air  Force  in  the  grade  of  airman
basic on 8 September 1986, for a term of 4  years.   She  was  progressively
promoted to the grade of technical sergeant and  currently  serves  in  that
grade.   The  first  time  the  29  January  1997  report  would  have  been
considered in the promotion process was cycle 97E6.  The first time  the  30
December 1998 report would have been considered  in  the  promotion  process
was cycle 99E6.
She filed an appeal under the provisions of AFI 36-2401, Correcting  Officer
and Enlisted Evaluation Reports and her appeal was denied on 19 March 1999.

The applicant’s EPR profile reflects the following:

      PERIOD ENDING    EVALUATION OF POTENTIAL

          15 Jun 06          5
          15 Jun 05          4
          30 Dec 04          4
          30 Dec 03          5
          30 Dec 02          5
          30 Dec 01          5
          30 Dec 00          5
          30 Dec 99          4
         *30 Dec 98          2
          30 Dec 97          4
         *29 Dec 97          2
          29 Jan 96          4
          29 Jan 95          5
          29 Jan 94          5
          29 Jan 93          5
          29 Jan 92          4
          14 Aug 91          4
          14 Aug 90          4
          12 Jan 90          4


* Contested reports

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPPEP recommends denial and states in part, that they agree  with  the
initial assessment provided to the applicant by the  ERAB.   She  failed  to
provide supporting evidence showing  a  personal  vendetta.   An  evaluation
report is considered to represent the rating chain’s best  judgment  at  the
time it is rendered.  Once a  report  is  accepted  for  file,  only  strong
evidence  to  the  contrary  warrants  correction   or   removal   from   an
individual’s record.   The  burden  of  proof  is  on  the  applicant.   The
applicant has not substantiated the contested report  was  not  rendered  in
good faith by all evaluators based  on  knowledge  available  at  the  time.
Disagreements in the work place are not unusual and, in themselves,  do  not
substantiate  an  evaluator  cannot  be  objective.    DPPEP   opines   that
subordinates are required to abide by their superior’s decisions.  If  there
was a personality conflict between the applicant and the rater which was  of
such  magnitude  the  rater  could  not  be  objective,  the  commander   or
additional rater would have known about it  since  the  APRs  indicates  the
evaluators were assigned to the same location.  If  a  personality  conflict
were as evident as the applicant perceived, we believe the  final  evaluator
would have made any necessary adjustments to the applicant’s EPRs.  She  has
not provided  specific  instances  based  on  firsthand  observation,  which
substantiate the relationship between her and her rater was strained to  the
point an objective evaluation was impossible.   If  a  personality  conflict
was as evident as the applicant perceived,  the  rater’s  rater  would  have
noted this and made any necessary adjustments to her EPRs.  The  letters  of
support and other extraneous documents she provides are not  significant  to
the reports in question.  None of the  testimonials  the  applicant  submits
state the evaluators could not be objective in their assessment of her  duty
performance.

The complete evaluation is at Exhibit C.

AFPC/DPPPWB defers to the recommendation of DPPPEP.  DPPPWB states the  fact
that  the  EPRs  were  referral,  rendered  the  applicant  ineligible   for
promotion consideration.  The first time she would have  been  eligible  for
promotion consideration to technical sergeant was cycle 97E6.  However,  she
received a promotion eligibility  status  (PES)  code  “G”  (placed  on  the
control roster), which is an ineligibility condition IAW AFI 36-2502,  Table
1.1, Rule 5.  She was also ineligible for promotion consideration for  cycle
99E IAW AFI 36-2502, Table 1.1, Rule 22, since her 30 December  1998  report
was a referral.

The complete evaluation is at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 19  Jan
07, for review and comment within 30 days.  As of  this  date,  this  office
has received no response.

_________________________________________________________________

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 error or injustice.  The applicant contends the contested  EPRs
were the result of a personal vendetta against her, are  unjust  and  should
be removed from her records.  After reviewing the documentation provided  by
the applicant and the evidence of record,  the  Board  finds  no  persuasive
evidence showing that the applicant was rated unfairly, that  the  contested
reports were in error, or that the evaluators  were  biased  and  prejudiced
against the applicant.  In our opinion, the evaluators were responsible  for
assessing the applicant’s performance during the  periods  in  question  and
are presumed to have rendered the evaluations based on their observation  of
the applicant’s performance.  Therefore, we  agree  with  the  opinions  and
recommendations of the Air  Force  offices  of  primary  responsibility  and
adopt their rationale as the basis for our  conclusion  that  the  applicant
has not been the victim of  an  error  or  injustice.   In  the  absence  of
evidence to the contrary, we find no compelling basis to recommend  granting
the relief sought.

4.    The applicant's case is adequately documented  and  it  has  not  been
shown that a personal appearance with or  without  counsel  will  materially
add to our understanding of the issue(s) involved.  Therefore,  the  request
for a hearing is not favorably considered.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:

The applicant be notified that the evidence presented  did  not  demonstrate
the existence of an error or injustice;  that  the  application  was  denied
without a personal  appearance;  and  that  the  application  will  only  be
reconsidered upon the submission of newly discovered relevant  evidence  not
considered with this application.
_________________________________________________________________

The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket Number  BC-2006-
03085 in Executive Session on 14 March 2007 under the provisions of AFI  36-
2603:

                 Ms. Patricia J. Zarodkiewicz, Vice Chair
                 Mr. Richard K. Hartley, Member
                 Mr. Garry G. Sauner, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 9 Sep 06, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPEP, dated 20 Nov 06.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPWB, dated 4 Jan 07.
   Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 19 Jan 07.





                                  Patricia J. Zarodkiewicz
                                  Vice Chair