RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2014-00358
		COUNSEL:  NONE
		HEARING DESIRED:  NO 


APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

1.  His Enlisted Performance Reports (EPRs), rendered for the 
period 27 Mar 89 through 26 Mar 90 and 27 Mar 90 through 18 Sep 
90, be declared void and removed from his military personnel 
records.

2.  He be considered for supplemental promotion consideration to 
the grade of Senior Master Sergeant (SMSgt).


APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He was a victim of racial prejudice and the problem was 
addressed and identified in the Inspector General (IG) report.  
His squadron commander agreed with his case but stated it would 
jeopardize his career so his complaint never went anywhere.  

The rationale given for downgrading his EPR was due to a 
supposedly quota system his leadership had to follow.  He was 
eventually made the Chief of Standardization and Evaluation, a 
position that is awarded to the best and most mature controller, 
not someone who does not demonstrate leadership, good judgment, 
professionalism and poor duty performance.  However, according 
to his EPRS, he did not meet those standards.  He remained in 
that position for four years even though it is normally a one 
year term.  

While performing his duties, he had to remove some controllers 
from their position because of violations and some of them 
happened to be black controllers.  As a result, he was labeled 
by some of the black controllers as the “Over Seer,” a term that 
he felt was racial and derogatory.  When the IG team conducted 
their investigation, they identified there was a racial problem 
in the facilities.  Many other observations were made by the IG 
team that led to the removal of the Chief Controller from his 
position.

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





STATEMENT OF FACTS:

According to the applicant’s DD Form 214, Certificate of Release 
or Discharge from Active Duty, on 30 Sep 77, he enlisted in the 
Regular Air Force.  On 1 Oct 97, he retired from active duty and 
was credited with 20 years and 1 day of total active service.  
On 21 Feb 14, SAF/IG conducted a search for an IG report but did 
not identify any records associated with the applicant’s name.
The following is an abbreviated resume of his available Senior 
EPR ratings:
	RATING PERIOD	PROMOTION RECOMMENDATION
	24 Dec 95	5
	24 Dec 94	5
	1 Apr 94	5
	1 Apr 93	5
	1 Apr 92	5
	18 Sep 91 	5
 *18 Sep 90	4
 *26 Mar 90	4
		 
* Contested Report

The applicant provides no rationale as to why his failure to 
timely file should be waived in the interest of justice.


AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
	
AFPC/DPSID recommends denial of the applicant’s request to 
remove the contested EPRs.  Based on the untimely request, 
insufficient evidence provided, and the presumed legitimacy of 
the original crafting of the EPRs, the contested evaluations 
should not be voided from the applicant’s permanent record.  The 
applicant has not provided compelling evidence to show that the 
reports are unjust or inaccurate as written.

The applicant did not file an appeal through the Evaluation 
Report Appeals Board (ERAB) due to his retirement from active 
duty; however, the contested EPRS have been a matter of record 
for over 24 years.  As a result, the applicant’s unreasonable 
delay regarding this matter has greatly complicated the Air 
Force’s ability to determine the factual merits of the 
applicant’s position.

While the applicant contends the contested EPRS are unjust based 
on his claim of racial discrimination, he has not provided any 
substantial evidence indicating the evaluators of the contested 
reports wrote an unfair or impartial EPR but only presented his 
personal view of the events.  Although he provided a Social 
Actions Staff Assistance Visit Report, known today as a Unit 
Climate Assessment or Equal Opportunity Climate Assessment 
Survey, in which he believed was an IG investigation, it was in 
fact not and does not prove he was discriminated against based 
on his race.  

Lastly, while the applicant contends the unit commander agreed 
with him in that he was discriminated against, he has not 
provided a statement or evidence to support his claim.  Based on 
the evidence provided, or lack thereof, we believe the contested 
EPRs are accurate and in accordance with applicable Air Force 
policies and procedures.  Air Force policy is that an evaluation 
report is accurate as written when it becomes a matter of record 
and is considered to represent the rating chain’s best judgment 
at the time it is rendered.  The applicant has not substantiated 
that the contested reports were not rendered accurately and in 
good faith by all evaluators based on knowledge available at the 
time.

The complete DPSID evaluation is at Exhibit C.

AFPC/DPSOE has no equity in the decision and defers to DPSID’s 
recommendation.  Furthermore, supplemental promotion 
consideration is granted on a case-by-case basis and not 
normally granted if the error or omission appeared on the Data 
Verification Record (DVR) or in the Unit Personnel Record Group 
(UPRG) and the member did not take the appropriate corrective or 
follow up action before the original board convened.  The 
applicant never petitioned to have the EPRs removed prior to any 
promotion board convening for cycles 92S8 – 96E8.

Based on the applicant’s Date of Rank (DOR) to Master Sergeant 
(MSgt), he was considered and nonselected for promotion to the 
grade of SMSgt seven times prior to retiring.  The two contested 
reports were used in the promotion process for six of the seven 
cycles (92S8 – 96E8) and the ratings on both reports were “4s.”

Should the Board grant the applicant’s request to remove the 
contested EPRs, DPSOE recommends the applicant be provided 
supplemental promotion consideration for cycles 92S8-96E8. 

The complete DPSOE evaluation is at Exhibit D.


APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant reiterates that he was discriminated against 
because he was white as it relates to his performance reports.  
He states that the rationale given for his low evaluations was 
that it was a new evaluation system and there was a quota as to 
how many five ratings could be given versus four ratings.  Prior 
to the new system being implemented, he received all nines, the 
highest rating available.  He originally tried to have the EPRs 
removed in the early 90s but his commander chose not to support 
his complaint of racial bias involving a black superior and a 
white subordinate.  His congressman suggested he file the DD 
Form 149.

He was promoted to the grade of MSgt in less than 12 years and 
was moving up the ranks faster than most.  However, when the new 
evaluation system came out, his supervisor gave him a four 
rating consecutively and then for the remainder of his career 
until he retired, he received a five rating.  He continued to do 
everything possible to get promoted to include completing all 
Professional Military Education (PME), Air Force Associates 
Degree, Bachelor’s Degree, tower and radar certifications, and a 
teaching certificate in special education for Texas schools.

His superiors made it clear that they did not like him and was 
going to make sure he never got promoted again.  He was not the 
only one who suffered as many other controllers had the same 
experience.  He goes on to reiterate that the Social Actions 
team uncovered some of the racial tensions amongst the 
controllers.  

Lastly, he reiterates that race was a contributing factor for 
his low EPRs that stalled his career.  

His complete response is at Exhibit F.


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 an error or injustice to warrant 
removing the contesting reports and granting supplemental 
promotion consideration to the grade of SMSgt.  We took careful 
notice of the applicant's complete submission in judging the 
merits of the case; however, we agree with the opinions and 
recommendations 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.  We do not find his assertions, in and by 
themselves, sufficiently persuasive in this matter.  We are not 
persuaded by the evidence provided that the contested reports 
are not a true and accurate assessment of his demonstrated 
potential during the specified time period or that the ratings 
he received were in error or contrary to the provisions of the 
governing instruction.  Therefore, in the absence of persuasive 
evidence to the contrary, we find no basis to recommend granting 
the relief sought in this application.


THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:

The applicant be notified the evidence presented did not 
demonstrate the existence of material error or injustice; the 
application was denied without a personal appearance; and 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-2014-00358 in Executive Session on 14 Jan 15, under 
the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

		                     , Panel Chair
		                       , Member
		                   , Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:
	Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 20 Jan 14, w/atchs.
	Exhibit B.  Applicant's Available Master Personnel Records
	Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPSID, dated 15 Oct 14.
	Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPSOE, dated 3 Nov 14.
	Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 28 Nov 14.
	Exhibit F.  Letter, Applicant, dated 7Dec 14, w/atch.

       

5