RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:                       DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2007-00452
                                        INDEX CODE:  111.02
  XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX                     COUNSEL:  NONE

                                        HEARING DESIRED:  YES

MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:  11 January 2008

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) rendered for the period 29 April  2001
through 1 March 2002 be voided and removed from his records.   Additionally,
his records be considered by the 2007 Senior Noncommissioned Officer  (SNCO)
Supplemental Promotion Board for promotion  cycles  04E9  and  05E9  to  the
grade of chief master sergeant (CMSgt) (E-9).

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The  contested  report  is  unfair  due  to  insufficient  supervision   and
personality conflict.

In support of his  request,  the  applicant  submits  copies  of  his  EPRs;
performance  feedback  evaluations;  awards  and  decorations;  letters   of
support; leave and earnings statements; temporary duty (TDY)  documentation;
excerpts  of  Air  Force  Instruction   (AFI)   36-2406;   Application   for
Correction/Removal  of  Evaluation  Reports  and  correspondence  concerning
supplemental board consideration.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The  Military  Personnel  Database  (MilPDS)  indicates  the  applicant   is
currently serving on active duty in the  grade  of  senior  master  sergeant
(SMSgt) (E-8) with an effective date and date of rank of  1  November  2000.
He has a Total Active Federal Military Service Date of 15  May  1979  and  a
projected date of separation of 30 June 2007.

The following is a resume of the applicant’s EPR profile:

      PERIOD ENDING          PROMOTION RECOMMENDATION

    31 May 97                     5
    31 May 98                     5
    31 May 99                     5
    31 May 00                     5
    28 Apr 01                     5
     1 Mar 02*                    5
     1 Mar 03                     5
     1 Mar 04                     5
    24 Apr 05                     5
    24 Apr 06                     5

   *Contested report

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPPEP recommends denial of the applicant’s request  to  void  his  EPR
closing on 1 March 2002.  DPPPEP states AFI 36-2406,  table  2.1,  note  6a,
indicates “Deduct all periods  of  30  or  more  consecutive  calendar  days
during which the ratee did not  perform  normal  duties  under  the  rater’s
supervision because either the ratee or rater was TDY, on leave, in  patient
status, in classroom, training, Absent Without Leave,  dropped  from  rolls,
or in confinement.  This deduction period does not include periods  of  loan
to another section or organization when authorities do not change the  rater
or publish TDY orders.   The  applicant  has  presented  valid  evidence  to
support 50 days should be deducted from the number of  days  of  supervision
on the  contested  report.   The  Evaluation  Reports  Appeal  Board  (ERAB)
directed correction of the days of  supervision  on  the  contested  EPR  to
reflect 257 versus 307.  The report  now  correctly  reflects  257  days  of
supervision.

DPPPEP states the applicant is attempting to relate the ratings on  his  EPR
to the markings on his performance feedback worksheet  (PFW).   This  is  an
inappropriate comparison and is inconsistent with  the  enlisted  evaluation
system.  The purpose of the feedback session is to give the ratee  direction
and to define performance expectations for the rating  period  in  question.
Feedback also provides the ratee the opportunity to improve performance,  if
necessary, before the EPR is  written.   Ratings  on  the  PFW  are  not  an
absolute indicator of EPR ratings or  potential  for  serving  in  a  higher
grade. A ratee who performs current duties in an  exceptional  manner  could
demonstrate only  limited  potential  for  the  next  higher  grade.   Every
exceptional performer does not possess outstanding promotion  potential  and
evaluators need to make that clear on the EPR they write.

DPPPPEP states the  applicant  indicates  he  completed  SNCO  Academy,  was
awarded a Meritorious Service Medal; competed at  Pacific  Command  for  the
Lance P. Sijan Leadership Award; 2002 candidate for prestigious  Chief,  Air
Force Supply Enlisted Assignments position; and was a  prominent  leader  in
the squadron winning of the 2001 USAF Supply Effectiveness Award during  the
same period as his contested report.  However, citations  are  not  specific
enough  to  offset  the  comments  and  rating  in  a  report.   Awards  and
decorations are usually submitted by members of the  rating  chain  who  are
fully aware of the  contested  report.   Therefore,  an  approved  award  or
decoration alone does not challenge the accuracy of a report.

DPPPEP states the applicant failed to  provide  any  reasonable  explanation
for waiting more than five years before filing this appeal.  It is  apparent
there is nothing in this case that was not discoverable at the time  of  the
contested report.  The applicant’s unreasonable delay regarding this  matter
has greatly complicated the Air Force’s ability to determine the  merits  of
the applicant’s position.

DPPPEP states 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  simple  willingness  by
evaluators to upgrade, rewrite, or void a report is not a  valid  basis  for
doing so.  You must prove the report is erroneous or  unjust  based  on  its
content.  To effectively challenge an EPR, it is necessary to hear from  all
the members of the rating chain  –  not  only  for  support,  but  also  for
clarification/explanation.  The  applicant’s  additional  rater  provided  a
memorandum supporting the applicant’s request; however, the fact  the  rater
was unwilling to  provide  additional  documentation  speaks  volumes.   The
rater obviously rendered a report he  considered  to  be  accurate.   DPPPEP
notes the additional rater made adjustments to the  report  by  marking  the
rating in Section III, Block 1 and 7 to the far right, rendering the  report
a “Firewall 5” rating.

It is DPPPEP’s opinion the report is accurate as written  and  it  would  be
unfair and biased to remove the report from the  applicant’s  record  as  it
was completed in direct compliance with regulation.

The AFPC/DPPPEP evaluation is at Exhibit B.

AFPC/DPPPWB defers to DPPPEP’s recommendation.  DPPPWB  states  supplemental
promotion consideration is granted  on  a  case-by-case  basis  for  reasons
listed in AFI 36-2502, Table 2.5.  A member will  not  normally  be  granted
supplemental consideration if the error  or  omission  appeared  on  his/her
Data Verification Record or in the  Unit  Personnel  Record  Group  and  the
individual did not take  the  appropriate  corrective  action  or  follow-up
action before the original board convened.  The purpose of  this  policy  is
to reduce the number of “after the fact” changes that are  initiated  in  an
effort to get a second opportunity for promotion.   The  applicant  did  not
file an appeal through the ERAB  process  and  states  he  did  not  request
correction until now because he didn’t have the foresight  to  see  how  the
report was going to negatively affect his career.  Should  the  AFBCMR  void
the contested report as  requested,  they  could  direct  the  applicant  be
provided supplemental consideration beginning with cycle 04E9.

The DPPPWB evaluation is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant contends if claimants must send their  correspondence  to  the
same entity (AFPC) that has already denied their request, then how  can  the
AFBCMR ever get a chance to see an  unfiltered  version  of  what  has  been
submitted by applicants?  The advisory opinions  do  not  even  mention  the
command chief letters submitted with his  appeal.   He  apologizes  for  not
acting  on  this  matter  sooner  and   requests   the   Board’s   favorable
consideration on his appeal.

The applicant’s rebuttal 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.  Insufficient relevant evidence has been  presented  to  demonstrate  the
existence of probable error or injustice.  After a thorough  review  of  the
available records and the applicant’s submission, we found  no  evidence  to
support  his  contention  that  the  contested  EPR  was   unfair   due   to
insufficient supervison.  While we note the Air Force corrected  the  number
of days of supervision on the contested report from 307 to 257,  the  period
was still enough to warrant  an  EPR  by  his  rater.   The  applicant  also
contends the contested report was unfair because  there  was  a  personality
conflict between him and his rater.  However, we are not convinced  that  if
there existed a personality conflict between the rater  and  the  applicant,
that it prevented the rater from being objective when he rendered  the  EPR.
We note the additional rater and  the  reviewer  did  not  concur  with  the
comments provided by the rater on the contested report and,  the  additional
rater corrected the report in section III, blocks 1 and 7 to a (Firewall  5)
rating.  Therefore, we are not convinced the report is in error and that  it
contributed to his non-selection for promotion to CMSgt.   In  view  of  the
above and in the absence of evidence showing  the  contested  report  is  an
inaccurate depiction of his performance during the period of evaluation,  we
agree with the opinion  and  recommendation  of  the  Air  Force  office  of
primary responsibility.  Accordingly, his request to set aside his  EPR  and
supplemental promotion consideration is not favorably considered.

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 issues 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 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 this application in  Executive
Session on 15 May 2007, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

                 Mr. Michael V. Barbino, Panel Chair
                 Mr. Don H. Kendrick, Member
                 Mr. John B. Hennessey, Member


The following documentary evidence for AFBCMR  Docket  Number  BC-2007-00452
was considered:

      Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 7 Feb 07, w/atchs.
      Exhibit B.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPEP, dated 6 Mar 07.
      Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPWB, dated 9 Mar 07.
      Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 13 Apr 07.
      Exhibit E.  Applicant’s Rebuttal, dated 17 Apr 07.




                                   MICHAEL V. BARBINO
                                   Panel Chair