RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2007-02479
            INDEX CODE:  111.02

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED: NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

The rating on his Enlisted Performance  Report  (EPR)  dated  4 August
2004, be changed to reflect a 5 rather than a 4.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He provided an EPR written for a subordinate of  his.   Senior  Master
Sergeant (SMSgt) “M…” did not agree with the rating of his subordinate
believing it was too high.  He contends SMSgt “M…” threatened him  and
made the  comment  that  he  would  “…make  (him)  pay  for  a  rating
subordinate  too  high.”   He  went  to  his  supervisor   with   this
information and was told by  his  supervisor  that  he  would  not  be
affected.  However, he contends SMSgt “M…”  did  make  his  supervisor
change his rating from a “5” to a “4”.  He presented his  concerns  to
the first sergeant and he took action.

In support of his appeal, the applicant has  provided  copies  of  the
subject   EPR   and   several   AF   IMT    1168’s,    Statement    of
Suspect/Witness/Complainant, and a letter  of  support  from  a  chief
master sergeant (CMSgt/Chief).

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant is currently serving in the Regular Air Force in  the  grade
of master sergeant (MSgt).  He received an EPR for the period 4 August
2003 through 3 August 2004 with a rating of “4”;  the  highest  rating
being a “5”.  He did not file an appeal of the EPR in accordance  with
Air Force Instruction (AFI) 36-2401, Correcting Officer  and  Enlisted
Evaluation Reports.  Therefore his EPR was forwarded to the Evaluation
Reports Appeals Board, (ERAB) where his request was denied as the ERAB
was not convinced the report was either inaccurate or unjust.

_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPPEP recommends denial.  DPPPEP contends an  evaluation  report
is considered to represent the rating chain’s  best  judgment  at  the
time  it  is  rendered.   In  worker-supervisor  relationships,   some
disagreements are likely to occur since  a  worker  must  abide  by  a
supervisor’s policies and decisions.  Personnel who do not perform  at
expected standards or require close supervision may  believe  that  an
evaluator is personally biased; however,  the  conflict  generated  by
this personal attention is usually professional rather than  personal.
From the evidence provided, the  applicant  did  not  prove  that  the
additional rater was unfair or biased in his  evaluation  or  that  he
coerced the rater into changing his rating.

DPPPEP’s complete evaluation is at Exhibit C.

AFPC/DPSOE addresses the supplemental  promotion  consideration  issue
should the Board grant this request.   Should  the  Board  change  the
overall rating on the report, providing he is otherwise eligible,  the
applicant would be entitled to  supplemental  consideration  beginning
with cycle 05E7.   However,  it  would  serve  no  useful  purpose  to
supplementally consider him as his  total  score  would  not  increase
sufficiently  to  meet  the  promotion  cutoff  score   required   for
selection.  His total score was 303.49  and  the  score  required  for
selection in his Air Force Specialty (AFS) was 333.68, a difference of
30.19 points.  Changing the contested evaluation from a “4” to  a  “5”
would only increase his weighted score by 6.75 points.  As a matter of
information, the applicant was selected for promotion to  MSgt  during
cycle 06E7 with a pin on date of 1 October 2006.

DPSOE’s 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 5
October 2007 for review and comment within 30 days.  As of this  date,
no response has been received by this office.

_________________________________________________________________

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.  Sufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the
existence of error  or  injustice.   We  disagree  with  AFPC/DPPPEP’s
contention that the conflict  generated  between  the  applicant,  his
rater and his additional rater was professional rather than  personal.
Personnel associated with  the  applicant  and  his  additional  rater
provided more than enough compelling testimony for us to believe  that
the events indeed unfolded as testified to by the applicant and  other
sworn witnesses,  including  his  supervisor  (rater).   While  DPPPEP
contends no coercion took place, we disagree as it appears the  entire
process was fraught with it.  Further, the overall inference that  the
applicant was not negatively affected by receiving a 4 rather than a 5
on his EPR is at best misleading and  at  worst  mistaken.   With  the
benefit of hindsight, it appears that a 4 on his EPR  did  not  affect
his attempt to be promoted to  master  sergeant.   Applying  foresight
however, indicates that a 4 would most likely  negatively  affect  any
future promotion  consideration  by  senior  NCO  promotion  selection
boards.  Therefore, we recommend that  the  records  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  his  Air  Force  Form
910, Enlisted Performance Report, dated 4 August 2003 through 3 August
2004, Block IV, Promotion Recommendation, be marked with an “X”  under
column 5, Immediate Promotion, for both the Rater and  the  Additional
Rater’s recommendation, rather than the “X” in column  4,  Ready,  for
both the Rater and the Additional Rater’s recommendation.

______________________________________________________________

The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket Number BC-
2007-02479  in  Executive  Session  on  3  January  2008,  under   the
provisions of AFI 36-2603:

      Mr. Mr. Michael K. Gallogly, Panel Chair
      Ms. Teri G. Spoutz, Member
      Mr. Joseph D. Yount, Member

All members  voted  to  correct  the  records,  as  recommended.   The
following documentary evidence was  considered  pertaining  to  AFBCMR
Docket Number BC-2007-02479:

    Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 31 July 2007, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPPPEP, dated 28 August 2007.
    Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/DPSOE, dated 10 September 2007.
    Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 5 October 2007.



                                   MICHAEL K. GALLOGLY
                                   Panel Chair
                         DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE
                                WASHINGTON DC


[pic]
Office Of The Assistant Secretary



AFBCMR BC-2007-02479




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 APPLICANT, be corrected to show that his Air Force
Form 910, Enlisted Performance Report, dated 4 August 2003 through 3
August 2004, Block IV, Promotion Recommendation, be marked with an “X”
under column 5, Immediate Promotion, for both the Rater and the
Additional Rater’s recommendation, rather than the “X” in column 4,
Ready, for both the Rater and the Additional Rater’s recommendation.





     JOE G. LINEBERGER

     Director

     Air Force Review Boards Agency