RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  99-00723
		INDEX CODE:  111.02, 111.05

			COUNSEL:  None

			HEARING DESIRED:  Yes

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

The Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) rendered for the period 3 Mar 97 through 2 Mar 98 be declared void and removed from her records.

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

When the initial report was sent back to the endorser for reaccomplishment of his comments, the EPR should have been referred.  She was not given the opportunity to provide comments for consideration in the rating.  The endorser’s comments on the contested report do not accurately portray her character or performance not only during this reporting period but also for her entire Air Force career.  She believes she has provided overwhelming evidence from her rater’s comments, Air Force Achievement Medal (AFAM) narrative, and personal character reference letters that challenge the endorser’s comments and rating.  This report was also not properly managed by the Enlisted Evaluation System (EES).

In support of her appeal, the applicant provided copies of her EPRs, letters of character reference, a copy of the 1 Oct 98 AFI 36‑2401 decision, a copy of the 28 Jan 99 AFI 36‑2401 decision, and a copy of her AFAM narrative.

Applicant’s complete submission is attached at Exhibit A.

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant’s Total Active Federal Military Service Date (TAFMSD) is 26 Jun 85.  She is currently serving in the Regular Air Force in the grade of technical sergeant, effective, and with a date of rank (DOR) of 1 May 97.

Applicant’s EPR profile follows:

            PERIOD ENDING          OVERALL EVALUATION

             30 Sep 90                     5
             30 Sep 91                     5
             30 Sep 92                     5
              2 Mar 93                     5
              2 Mar 94                     5
              2 Mar 95                     5
              2 Mar 96                     5
              2 Mar 97                     5
            * 2 Mar 98                     3
             15 Feb 99                     5
             25 Jun 99                     5

     *  Contested report.

A similar application was submitted under AFI 36‑2401, Correcting Officer and Enlisted Report Reports.  The Evaluation Report Appeal Board (ERAB) agreed with the fact that the endorser and the rater nonconcurred and directed that Sections VI (Indorser’s Comments) and VII (Commander’s Review) of the report be reaccomplished to include at least one statement from the endorser addressing nonconcurrence.  The report has now been corrected and the corrected version of the EPR is the one the applicant is now taking issue with.

Officials at AFPC/DPPPWB indicate applicant was not promoted during cycle 99E7.  Her score was 309.92 and the cutoff was 334.01.

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The XXXXX, Inquiries/AFBCMR Section, AFPC/DPPPWB, reviewed this application and indicated that the contested EPR has not yet been eligible for consideration in the promotion process.  It will be considered the next cycle to master sergeant, 99E7, provided she is recommended by her commander and is otherwise eligible.  Selections for the 99E7 cycle will be done approximately 20 May 99.  If a favorable decision is not received by 7 May 99, supplemental promotion consideration will be required, assuming she is not selected with the report during the initial selection process.

A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit B.

The XXXXX, Appeals & SSB Branch, AFPC/DPPPA, also reviewed this application and indicated that AFI 36‑2403, attachment 1, defines referral reports as those with a rating in the far left block in Section III (Evaluation of Performance); a rating of “1” - “not recommended for promotion” in Section IV (Promotion Recommendation); or, comments that refer to behavior not meeting minimal acceptable standards of performance, personal conduct, character, or integrity.  When the report was returned to the endorser for reaccomplishment of his comments, it was up to him to determine what it was about the applicant’s duty performance that was lacking and make comment on it.  Further, it was his prerogative to determine whether or not the applicant’s duty performance met standards.  If he had determined applicant’s duty performance did not meet standards, he would have been required to refer the report to the applicant for comment.  Apparently the endorser believed the applicant’s performance met “minimal acceptable standards of performance” and, as such, no referral was necessary.  His nonconcurrence with the rater’s evaluation of the applicant does not make the report a referral (AFI 36‑2403, paragraph 4.9.4).

The letters of support which the applicant provides are not germane to the report in question.  The testimonials she submits do not state the evaluators rated her inaccurately nor would DPPPA be convinced of their ability to more accurately assess her performance considering they were not the individuals charged with performing this responsibility.

In regard to applicant’s contentions that the contested EPR is inconsistent with previous performance, it is not reasonable to compare one report covering a certain period of time with another report covering a different period of time.  This does not allow for changes in the ratee’s performance and does not follow the intent of the governing regulation, AFI 36‑2403.  The EPR was designed to provide a rating for a specific period of time based on the performance noted during that period, not based on previous performance.  Further, DPPPA opines that the endorser was fully aware of how well the applicant could perform her duties as he was also the endorser on her previous 2 Mar 97 EPR.

Finally, Air Force policy is that an evaluation report is accurate as written when it becomes a matter of record and to effectively challenge an EPR, it is necessary to hear from all the members of the rating chain—not only for support but for clarification/explanation.  Obvious by their absence is any type of information/support from the rating chain on the contested EPR.  In the absence of information from evaluators, official substantiation of error or injustice from the Inspector General (IG) or Social Actions is appropriate, but not provided in this case.  It appears the reports were accomplished in direct accordance with applicable regulations and the burden of proof is on the applicant.  She has not substantiated the contested report was not rendered in good faith by all evaluators based on knowledge available at the time.  Based on the evidence provided, DPPPA recommends denial.

A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation, with attachment, is attached at Exhibit C.

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Applicant reviewed the Air Force evaluations and provided a two-page response with a copy of her most recent EPR closing 15 Feb 99.

Applicant’s complete response, with attachment, is attached 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.	Sufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of probable error or injustice warranting the voidance and replacement of the contested report.  Initially when applicant appealed the contested report under the provisions of AFI 36-2401, she asserted that the report did not accurately reflect her performance during the contested time period.  While the ERAB did not agree with her assertion, they did return the report to the endorser in order for him to include a statement regarding why he nonconcurred with the rater’s evaluation.  Applicant now contends that she should have had the opportunity to rebut the comments made by the endorser on the reaccomplished report because she believes these comments make the report a referral report.  Essentially, applicant contends that the contested report was a result of a personality conflict with the endorser of the report.  However, after thoroughly reviewing the evidence of record, we find insufficient evidence to support applicant’s contention that a personality conflict resulted in the downgraded promotion recommendation.  In this respect, we note the endorser was the same individual who indorsed applicant’s preceding EPR; therefore, we are persuaded that he was fully aware of her performance potential and that his overall promotion recommendation was more appropriate than the rater’s evaluation considering applicant’s behavior during the rating cycle.  Further noted is the fact that it is the endorser’s prerogative to determine whether applicant’s performance met standards and if the report should be referred.  Clearly, the endorser did not believe the report should be referred.  However, the problem which we are having with the reaccomplished report is that, as now written, the report contains derogatory comments which the endorser did not include in the original report and apparently would not have included had it not been for the ERAB appeal.  We are convinced that it was never the endorser’s intention to include such comments in the report, but rather he simply intended to assess applicant’s actual performance potential.  Therefore, we are persuaded that the contested report should be declared void and removed from applicant’s records and replaced with the original EPR.

4.	Inasmuch as we find no basis upon which to change the overall rating of the contested report, supplemental promotion consideration to the grade of master sergeant is not warranted.

THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT:

The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating to APPLICANT, be corrected to show that:

	a.	The EPR, AF Form 910, rendered for the period 3 Mar 97 through 2 Mar 98, and reflecting the following in Section VI, Endorser’s Comments, “Skilled technician demonstrates competent performance and high level of expertise while working alone,” be declared void and removed from her records.

	b.	The attached EPR, AF Form 910, rendered for the period 3 Mar 97 through 2 Mar 98, and reflecting the following in Section VI, Endorser’s Comments, “Consistently demonstrates competent performance and high level of expertise--single handedly presented all program information and evaluation documentation concerning Occupational Injury/Illness and Fetal Protection Programs during Air Force Audit Agency visit--no deficiencies noted during audit,” be inserted in her records in its proper sequence.

The following members of the Board considered this application in Executive Session on 16 December 1999, under the provisions of AFI 36‑2603:

All members voted to correct the records, as recommended.  The following documentary evidence was considered:

     Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 12 Mar 99, w/atchs.
     Exhibit B.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPWB, dated 23 Mar 99.
     Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPA, dated 26 Apr 99, w/atchs.
     Exhibit D.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 10 May 99.
     Exhibit E.  Letter fr applicant, dated 17 May 99, w/atch.

INDEX CODE:  111.02, 111.05

AFBCMR 99-00723

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, be corrected to show that:

		a.	The EPR, AF Form 910, rendered for the period 3 Mar 97 through 2 Mar 98, and reflecting the following in Section VI, Indorser’s Comments, “Skilled technician demonstrates competent performance and high level of expertise while working alone,” be, and hereby is, declared void and removed from her records.

		b.	The attached EPR, AF Form 910, rendered for the period 3 Mar 97 through 2 Mar 98, and reflecting the following in Section VI, Indorser’s Comments, “Consistently demonstrates competent performance and high level of expertise--single handedly presented all program information and evaluation documentation concerning Occupational Injury/Illness and Fetal Protection Programs during Air Force Audit Agency visit--no deficiencies noted during audit,” be inserted in her records in its proper sequence.