RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:                       DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2006-03161
                                             INDEX CODE:  111.05
      XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX                 COUNSEL:  NONE

                                             HEARING DESIRED:  NO


MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:  20 April 2008


________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) from 19 June 2002 through  9  November
2003 be removed from his records.

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

His additional rater abused  his  authority  which  ultimately  led  to  his
failure to accurately rate  his  performance  between  18  May  2003  and  9
November 2003.

His additional rater has a long history of  using  innuendo  and  rumors  to
rate members under his command.  His additional rater abused  his  authority
to encourage his deployed supervisor  to  reissue  a  Letter  of  Evaluation
(LOE) with a negative statement in order to substantiate  his  comments  and
ratings on the contested  EPR.   His  Officer  In  Charge  at  the  deployed
location stated that in their preparations for return to  home  station,  he
received copies of all LOEs, to include his, and his  LOE  did  not  contain
the negative statement.  His  additional  rater  based  his  performance  on
gossip he received from  his  subordinate  during  their  many  smoke  break
encounters  without  his  knowledge.   His  additional   rater   failed   to
accurately rate  his  performance  as  indicated  by  all  of  his  previous
supervisors while assigned to Holloman  AFB,  NM.   His  additional  rater’s
objective was to obstruct his opportunity to be promoted, which  he  clearly
stated to his rater when the contested EPR was  being  drafted.   His  rater
made a noble attempt to keep the contested EPR in the original  format  with
his ratings; however, his additional  rater  overrode  the  ratings  of  the
rater and inserted negative comments
to end his opportunity to be promoted to additional Senior NCO ranks.

There are two different versions of an LOE  from  31  January  2003  through
14 April 2003, both signed by the deployed rater.  One contains  a  negative
comment as the last bullet while the other does not  contain  this  comment.
The copy of the LOE without the negative comment was the  one  forwarded  to
his home  station  by  the  deployed  rater;  however,  the  deployed  rater
contends that the LOE containing the negative comment was the one  forwarded
to his home station.

The commander of the contested EPR supports his request to have  the  report
voided.  The commander states he discussed his  performance  with  his  past
and current supervisors, and  they  cleared  any  misconceptions  about  his
performance  during  the  rating  period  of  the  contested  report.    His
commander also reviewed his Personal Information  File  (PIF)  and  did  not
find any derogatory documentation to support the additional rater’s  ratings
or comments.

His rater stated that he stands by his evaluation of his performance  during
the rating period of the contested  EPR.   He  states  that  the  additional
rater’s justification for the mark downs on the contested  EPR  was  unjust,
all facts were not considered, and there were  too  many  cases  of  hearsay
used when making the decision to downgrade the EPR.  He also confirmed  that
the LOE with  the  negative  comment  was  the  actual,  true  LOE,  and  he
considered that information when preparing the contested EPR.

The additional rater also stands by his ratings/comments  on  the  contested
EPR.  He states he based his ratings/comments on  his  personal  observation
of his  duty  performance,  discussions  with  his  supervisors  and  flight
leadership at  his  home  station,  the  LOE  closing  14  April  2003,  and
conversations/communications  he  had  with  his  deployed  shop  chief  and
nightshift superintendent, as well as communications he was allowed  to  see
between his home station flight chief and deployed flight chief.

In support of his appeal, he submits a personal  statement,  a  letter  from
the 49th  Maintenance Squadron Commander, a letter from a  past  supervisor,
two letters from  the  rater  of  the  contested  EPR,  a  letter  from  the
additional rater of the contested EPR, a copy of the contested  EPR  closing
9 November  2003,  a  Rater/Feedback  timeline,  four  Performance  Feedback
Worksheets,  three  e-mails,  a  copy  of  the  LOE  without  the   negative
statement, a copy of the LOE containing the negative  statement,  an  Events
Log, copies of EPRs closing 6 May 2006, 2 August 2005, 9 November  2004,  18
June 2002, and 18 June 2001,
and three character statements.

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

________________________________________________________________


STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The  additional  rater  of  the  contested  EPR  closing  9  November  2003,
downgraded ratings rendered by the  Rater  in  Section  III,  Evaluation  of
Performance, for “How Well Does Ratee  Perform  Assigned  Duties”  and  “How
Well Does Ratee Communicate With Others”,  lowered  the  overall  rating  in
Section IV, Promotion Recommendation, from a “5” to a “4”,  and  stated  two
less than positive comments in  Section  VI,  Additional  Rater’s  Comments.
Applicant’s commander concurred with the EPR  as  written  in  Section  VII,
Commander’s Review.

Applicant filed an appeal to the Evaluation  Reports  Appeal  Board  (ERAB),
requesting that the markings by the rater in Section III, Items 1 and 7,  be
returned to what  they  originally  were,  Section  IV,  Additional  Rater’s
Recommendation, be upgraded to a “5”,  the  first  and  second  comments  in
Section VI, Additional Rater Comments,  be  rewritten  to  reflect  factual,
observed performance information, and the EPR be  dated  to  reflect  actual
supervision dates of 19 June 2002 through  18  June  2003.   On  11 February
2005, The ERAB directed the application be returned without action,  stating
that they would not consider nor approve requests to change  an  evaluator’s
ratings or comments if the evaluator did not support the  changes,  and  the
documentation provided did not support making changes  to  the  markings  or
the ratings.

Applicant’s performance profile follows:

      PERIOD ENDING                     OVERALL RATING

        27 Jun 97                            4
        27 Jun 98                            5 (firewall)
        18 Jun 99                            5 (firewall)
        18 Jun 00                            5 (firewall)
        18 Jun 01                            5
        18 Jun 02                            5
         9 Nov 03*                           4
         9 Nov 04                            5 (firewall)
         2 Aug 05                            5
         6 May 06                            5 (firewall)

*Contested Report

________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPPEP recommends denial since an EPR is considered  to  represent  the
rating chain’s best judgment at the time it is  rendered  and,  once  it  is
accepted for file, only strong evidence to the contrary warrants  correction
or removal from an individual’s records.  The burden  of  proof  is  on  the
applicant, and he has not substantiated the contested EPR was  not  rendered
in good faith by all evaluators based on knowledge available  at  the  time.
Further, he has not proven the EPR was rendered in retaliation against  him,
or that the EPR was not an accurate reflection  of  his  performance  during
the reporting period in question.  A  report  is  not  erroneous  or  unfair
because the  applicant  believes  it  contributed  to  a  non-selection  for
promotion, or may impact future  promotion  or  career  opportunities.   The
applicant must prove  the  report  is  erroneous  or  unjust  based  on  its
content.   In  the  absence  of  information   from   evaluators,   official
substantiation of error or injustice from the Inspector General or  Military
Equal Opportunity is appropriate; however, it has not been provided in  this
case and it appears the reports were accomplished in direct accordance  with
applicable regulations.

With respect to the commander’s support for  voiding  the  EPR,  it  is  not
reasonable to compare one report covering a  certain  period  of  time  with
another report covering a different period of time, as this does  not  allow
for changes in the ratee’s performance and does not  follow  the  intent  of
the governing AFI.  The EPR was designed to provide a rating for a  specific
period of time based on  performance,  and  is  not  to  be  based  on  past
performance.

The AFPC/DPPPEP evaluation is at Exhibit C.

AFPC/DPPPWB  has  deferred  to  the  AFPC/DPPPEP  recommendation   regarding
applicant’s request to have the EPR removed; however,  they  have  addressed
the supplemental promotion consideration issue should the  Board  grant  his
request.  They advise the next time the contested report  will  be  used  in
the promotion process is cycle 07E8  for  promotions  effective  April  2007
through March 2008.   The  Board  will  convene  5-23  February  2007,  with
selects tentatively scheduled to be  made  in  March  2007.   If  the  Board
grants applicants request to remove the EPR from his records prior to  March
2007, no supplemental consideration will be necessary.

The AFPC/DPPPWB evaluation is at Exhibit D.

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

He was not claiming that  the  LOE,  without  the  negative  statement,  was
forwarded to his home station.  Rather, his home station  and  deployed  OIC
received a copy of his LOE prior to their departure for home station and  it
did  not  contain  a  negative  statement  from  any  home  station   senior
leadership.  A subsequent version reflects no inclusive  supervision  dates,
a different reason for report completion,  deletion  of  the  8th bullet/sub
bullet, and a negative comment. This version was mailed to his home  station
without  his  prior  knowledge,  which   indicates   the   rating   official
intentionally,  but  haphazardly,  attempted  to  discredit   his   deployed
performance.  There was no indication of any  negative  feedback  concerning
his  performance  by  deployed  home  station  leadership,  except  for  his
reluctance to release an expensive laptop computer and printer that  he  had
signed out to deployed home station senior leadership.

His commander on the contested report has  confirmed  that  his  performance
during the contested rating period did not  justify  the  inclusion  of  any
negative comments.  Additionally,  his  previous  raters  had  daily  direct
interaction with him and had extensive  knowledge  of  the  quality  of  his
performance and product during the rating period in question.   Neither  the
commander nor section commander had a true opportunity to review the  report
before it became a matter of record, and the section  commander  has  stated
that if he had been  able  to  review  it,  he  would  have  questioned  its
negative content and returned it to the additional rater for corrections.

His intent to remove the EPR is not based on  non-selection  for  promotion;
rather, he is seeking a fair and just  EPR  that  is  based  on  his  actual
performance and not on innuendo  and  rumors.   The  additional  rater  uses
unethical methods to get what he wants and he has first  hand  knowledge  of
this.  He is making an educated assumption that  the  additional  rater  was
the individual who contacted the rater of the deployed LOE and was  able  to
pressure him to author an unauthorized second version of the  LOE  with  the
negative comment so he could justify his negative comments in the  contested
EPR.

Applicant’s complete response, with attachments, is contained 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.  Insufficient relevant evidence has been  presented  to  demonstrate  the
existence of  error  or  injustice.   We  took  notice  of  the  applicant's
complete submission in judging the merits of the  case;  however,  we  agree
with the opinion and recommendation of  the  Air  Force  office  of  primary
responsibility and adopt its rationale as the basis for our conclusion  that
the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice in  that  not
enough  evidence  has  been  presented  to  overcome  the   presumption   of
regularity in the conduct of governmental affairs in order for the Board  to
mitigate the  report.    Therefore,  in  the  absence  of  evidence  to  the
contrary, we find no compelling  basis  to  recommend  granting  the  relief
sought in this application.

________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:

The applicant be notified that the evidence presented  did  not  demonstrate
the existence of material 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  Docket  Number  BC-2006-03161
in Executive Session on 6 February 2007, under the  provisions  of  AFI  36-
2603:

                       Mr. James W. Russell, III, Panel Chair
                       Ms. Mary C. Puckett, Member
                       Mr. Joseph D. Yount, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 5 Oct 06, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPEP, undated.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPWB, dated 5 Dec 06.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, Applicant, dated 2 Jan 07, w/atchs.
    Exhibit F.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 15 Dec 06.




                                   JAMES W. RUSSELL, III
                                   Panel Chair