RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2007-01709
            INDEX CODE:  111.05
            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO

MANDATORY COMPLETION DATE:  3 NOVEMBER 2008

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

Her Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) for the period of 25 Apr 05 to 24 Apr
06 be voided and removed from her records.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

She returned to work after a deployment to find that she had been rated  "4"
on her EPR.  She approached her  supervisor  at  the  time  to  discuss  the
report. He stated that he had written a strong firewall "5" report  when  he
was directed by the then Services Commander to downgrade  the  report.   She
was told that  the  downgrade  was  based  upon  paperwork  presented  by  a
previous supervisor.  She asked why  none  of  the  specific  instances  had
supporting documentation.  Her seven-page rebuttal  was  the  only  existing
documentation.  Additionally,  no  one  in  her  chain  had  considered  her
rebuttal remarks.

She was the only NCO in her shop and supervisor of seven airmen.   A  single
parent of two children, one of whom was very sick during  this  time  frame,
and the other was  having  behavioral  problems.   She  was  attending  Life
Skills; however, her supervisors indicated they did not believe  she  should
be going to Life Skills even if she felt it was helping her.

In  support  of  the  application,  the  applicant  submits  copies  of  her
Application for Correction/Removal of Evaluation Reports (AF  Fm  948),  the
contested EPR, a Memo for Record, a Letter of Reprimand (LOR) and  rebuttal,
her child's medical records, a List  of  her  Life  Skills  appointments,  a
Letter of Evaluation (LOE), and duty status reports.

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

_________________________________________________________________



STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Information extracted from  the  Military  Personnel  Data  System  (MilPDS)
indicates the applicant is currently serving on active duty in the grade  of
technical sergeant, effective and with a date of rank of 1 Jul 03.

The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application, extracted from
the applicant’s military records, are contained in the letter prepared by
the appropriate office of the Air Force at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

HQ AFPC/DPPPEP recommends denial.  DPPPEP  states  the  Evaluations  Reports
Appeals Board (ERAB) reviewed and denied the applicant's request on  24  Apr
06.  DPPPEP declares the Air  Force  requires  endorsers,  reviewers,  first
sergeants (on enlisted), and commanders to  review  evaluation  reports  for
quality and  to  control  inflationary  tendencies.   These  officials  must
reject poorly prepared reports and downgrade  or  reject  inflated  reports.
Evaluators who change their evaluations after talking with a  superior  have
not necessarily been coerced.  Clear evidence must exist  proving  that  the
superior violated the  evaluator's  rating  rights.   Supporting  statements
must identify the person who did the coercing,  list  the  specific  threats
that  were  made,  and  identify  any  witnesses  who  can  corroborate  the
incident.

DPPPEP notes other than the number of day's  supervision,  no  evidence  was
found that the report is inaccurate or  unjustly  written.   The  number  of
day's supervision is an administrative  correction,  and  IAW  AFI  36-2401,
para 1.3.1, the board will not consider  nor  approve  requests  to  void  a
report when the error or injustice can be corrected administratively.

DPPPEP  notes  the  applicant's  statement  that  she  received  a  LOR  and
experienced several personal issues, many of which took her  away  from  the
job.  DPPPEP opines this could have affected her  duty  performance  in  the
eyes of her evaluators; therefore, it is  reasonable  to  assume  that  they
considered these situations when they prepared her report.  DPPPEP  explains
that any one of the incidents alone may not have amounted to much, but  when
considered together, they may have felt that a  less  than  "firewall  five"
EPR was more appropriate at the time and under  the  circumstances.   DPPPEP
concludes that other than being less than a "firewall  five"  report,  there
is nothing negative, inaccurate or unjust about the report.

The complete DPPEP evaluation is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 27  Jul
07, for review and comment within 30 days.  As of  this  date,  this  office
has received no response (Exhibit D).

_________________________________________________________________

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  error  or  injustice.   While  the  applicant   provided   no
statements of support from her rating chain, we note that all reports  prior
and subsequent to the contested report were rated "5."  Our  review  of  the
records provided do not reveal  any  evidence  she  was  put  on  notice  or
counseled regarding the deterioration of her  performance.   In  particular,
in our review of the contested EPR itself we found no  indication  of  where
the applicant’s performance had deteriorated.  Although the ERAB  determined
the only error in the contested EPR was  an  incorrect  number  of  days  of
supervision, based on our observations as  expressed  above,  we  have  some
doubt regarding whether  the  EPR  was  appropriately  rendered.   While  we
understand a performance rating is written for a specific  period  of  time,
we believe the record should  be  clear  when  an  individual’s  performance
changes from what appears to have been  a  well  established  norm,  overall
ratings of “5”.  Based on our assessment of the totality of evidence in  the
applicant’s case, we believe our doubt regarding the  contested  EPR  should
be resolved in her favor.  Therefore, we recommend her record  be  corrected
as indicated below.

_________________________________________________________________

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,  AF
IMT 910 (AB through TSgt), rendered for the period 25 Apr  2005  through  24
Apr 2006 be, and is hereby declared void and removed from her records.
_________________________________________________________________

The following members of the Board considered this application in  Executive
Session on 13 Sep 07, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

      Ms. Patricia J. Zarodkiewicz, Vice Chair
            Ms. Patricia R. Collins, Member
      Mr. Mark J. Novitski, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered in AFBCMR BC-2007-01709:

      Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 8 Jun 07, w/atch.
      Exhibit B.  Applicant’s Master Personnel Records.
      Exhibit C.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPPEP dated 9 Jul 07.
      Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 27 Jul 07.



                                   PATRICIA J. ZARODKIEWICZ
                                   Vice Chair


AFBCMR BC-2007-01709


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 APPLICANT, be corrected to show that the Enlisted Performance
Report, AF IMT 910 (AB through TSgt), rendered for the period 25 Apr 2005
through 24 Apr 2006 be, and hereby is, declared void and removed from her
records..




      JOE G. LINEBERGER
      Director
      Air Force Review Boards Agency