RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  99-00726
		INDEX CODE:  111.00

		COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

The Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) rendered for the period 16 November 1993 through 15 November 1994 be declared void and replaced with a reaccomplished report covering the same period.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The contested report is an inaccurate assessment of his performance.

The rater stated in a feedback session that he would receive a “5” rating and when the EPR was finalized and placed in his records the rating was a “4.”  When this was brought to the rater’s attention, he stated that he signed a blank AF Form 910 due to being on leave during the time the final draft went through the orderly room.

He feels that this has put his promotion advancement on hold.  He missed technical sergeant (TSgt) by three points in the 1997 cycle, and according to his calculations, if the EPR had been a “5” he would have made TSgt in 1997.  He is currently a TSgt due to the selection in the 1998 cycle.

In support of the appeal, applicant submits a personal statement, the Evaluation Report Appeals Board (ERAB) decision, dated 21 October 1997, contested EPR, reaccomplished EPR, statements from the rater and indorser, and other documentation.

Applicant's complete submission is attached at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant is currently serving in the Regular Air Force in the grade of technical sergeant.

The applicant appealed the contested report under the provisions of AFI 36-2401 and the appeal was considered and denied twice by the Evaluation Report Appeals Board (ERAB).

EPR profile since 1992 reflects the following:

          PERIOD ENDING	OVERALL EVALUATION

            1 Jan 92                     5	
            1 Jan 93                     5
           15 Nov 93                     5
         * 15 Nov 94                     4
           15 Nov 95                     5
           15 Oct 96                     5
           18 Jun 97                     5
           18 Jun 98                     5
            2 Mar 99                     5

     *  Contested report.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The XXXXX, Inquiries/AFBCMR Section, Enlisted Promotion & Military Testing Branch, HQ AFPC/DPPPWB, reviewed this application and states that the first time the contested report was considered in the promotion process was cycle 95E6 to technical sergeant (promotions effective August 95 - July 1996).  Should the AFBCMR void the contested report in its entirety, or upgrade the overall rating, providing he is otherwise eligible, the applicant will be entitled to supplemental promotion consideration beginning with cycle 95E6.  The applicant will not become a select during cycle 95E6 or 96E6 if the AFBCMR grants the request but would become a select for the 97E6 cycle pending a favorable data verification and the recommendation of the commander.  The applicant became a select during the 98E6 cycle with a date of rank and effective date of 1 December 1998.  Therefore, the defer to the recommendation of AFPC/DPPPAB.

A complete copy of the evaluation is attached at Exhibit C.

The XXXXX, Promotion, Evaluation and Recognition Division, Directorate of Personnel Program Management, HQ AFPC/DPPP, also reviewed this application and states that the applicant provided a statement from the rater of the report who admits he signed blank forms (prohibited by AFI 36-2403, paragraph 4.2.8.8) because he was going to be on leave when the report was finalized (it is against Air Force policy to complete an EPR prior to the closeout date of the report [AFI 3-2403, Table 3.1n, Note 5.2].  In so doing, the rater relinquished his rating responsibility to someone else (also prohibited by AFI 26-2401, paragraph 4.2.7.2).

In his 7 March 1995 letter, the indorser claims he was unaware the ratings on the report were erroneous.  Then on 11 September 1995, he states he did not recall the Section III ratings being straight down the excellent column at that time.  Two years later (19 June 1997) he claims “the problem indicated in the 11 September 1995 appeal request was a one time incident that was quickly resolved by [applicant] -- I still maintain that there are serious doubts as to the validity of the original report submitted.”  If he had doubts about the validity of the markings, why did he sign the report in the first place?  What sort of one-time problem existed during the reporting period that may have caused the report to be “downgraded” (the rater is also charged with considering the significance and frequency of incidents [including isolated instances of poor or outstanding performance] when assessing total performance)?  More importantly, the rater states he was on leave from 3-17 October 1994.  He does not state he was out of the local area or on temporary duty when the report closed out on 15 November 1994.  Since the indorser from the report admits he questioned the rater prior to signing the report to ensure the applicant received feedback during the reporting period, it, therefore, follows that they would have discussed the “4” promotion recommendation prior to signing the report.  Although the reviewer of the report recommends the report be upgraded to a “5,” he does not specifically say what type of administrative oversight occurred when the revisions were made to the report.

The applicant contends 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.

The applicant contends his rater was working in a new duty section when the EPR was written, and therefore, did not have first-hand knowledge of his duty performance.  The Air Force charges a rater to examine the results of the ratee’s work and get meaningful information from the ratee and as many sources as possible, especially when they cannot observe the ratee personally.  In this instance, the rater does not indicate he lacked adequate knowledge to properly evaluate the applicant.

The applicant asserts the indorser from the contested report did not have first-hand knowledge of his duty performance and, therefore, “would more than likely agree with the evaluation that was stated on the EPR.”  The indorser indicated in his memorandums he did not just agree with the ratings on the report.  He indicated he made inquiry's first, then concurred with the ratings.  The Air Force charges evaluators with rendering fair and accurate EPRs and ensuring the comments support the ratings.  Subsequent evaluators are not required to have “first-hand knowledge” of the ratee -- if they feel their knowledge is insufficient, they may obtain information from other reliable sources.

The applicant contends his rater told him he would receive an overall “5” promotion recommendation on the EPR and was, therefore, shocked to learn he had received a “4.”  There may be occasions when after a positive feedback session, an evaluator discovers serious problems that he or she must take into consideration even though they disagree with the previous feedback.  The indorser of the report admits some sort of problem occurred during the reporting period.  The fact the rater was not able to provide another feedback during the reporting period to document the “problem area” does not render the report inaccurate or the evaluation unfair.  As mentioned above, raters are charged with considering the significance and frequency of incidents when assessing total performance.  Therefore, they recommend denial of applicant’s request.

A complete copy of their evaluation is attached at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant reviewed the advisory opinions and states that the advisory focused on letters from the indorser, quoting statements from his 7 March 1995, 19 June 1997, and 11 September 1995 letters that claims he was unaware the rating on the report was erroneous; that he did not recall Section III ratings being straight down the excellent column; the problem in the 11 September 1995 appeal request was a one time incident that was quickly resolved by applicant.  Also, that he maintains that there are serious doubts as to the validity of the original report submitted.  The question the Air Force ask is what type of one time problem existed?  The indorser was referring to his divorce proceedings that were finalized as of 15 July 1994, during the rating period.  This is the incident to which the indorser is referring to in his 19 June 1997 letter.  The indorser was well aware of his divorce during the rating period.  The indorser also states in the letter that he questioned if a feedback had been accomplished, nowhere in the letter does it state that a rating was discussed.

In section “h” of HQ AFPC/DPPP letter, it is stated that an evaluator discovers serious problems that must be taken into consideration even though they disagree with the previous feedback.  He states that feedback was completed 20 September 1994, and if there were significant events that would change a rating, why would the rater not provide another feedback session.  According to the Enlisted Evaluation Training Guide dated 15 April 1996, page C-2, feedback gives information to the ratee, without it the ratee has no way of knowing how to improve, and how to adjust towards the expected outcome.

In the rater’s 3 March 1995, letter he states that the final draft was due to the orderly room during the time he was on leave, so he signed a blank AF Form 911, and left instructions on how it was to be marked.  He submitted two letters from the administrative personnel that clarifies that signing blank EPRs was standard procedures.  The administrative error that the reviewer failed to explain is explained in the commander’s letter.

Applicant's complete response is attached 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.	Sufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of probable error or injustice.  After reviewing the supporting documentation submitted by the applicant, we believe the contested report is not an accurate assessment of applicant's performance during the period in question.  In this respect, we note the statements submitted from the rater and indorser indicating that the report was mismarked.  They state that applicant has been an overall “5” performer and has done an outstanding job in performing his duties.  The rater and indorser both agree that the contested report is an inaccurate assessment of applicant’s performance.  In view of these statements and in the absence of evidence to question their integrity, we recommend the contested report be declared void and replaced with a reaccomplished report covering the same period.  In addition, we recommend he be provided supplemental promotion consideration to the grade of master sergeant for cycle 97E6.

_________________________________________________________________

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 Enlisted Performance Report, AF Form 910, rendered for the period 16 November 1993 through 15 November 1994, be, and hereby is, declared void and removed from his records.

	b.  The attached Enlisted Performance Report, AF Form 910, rendered for the period 16 November 1993 through 15 November 1994, be placed in his records in the proper sequence.

It is further recommended that he be provided supplemental consideration for promotion to the grade of master sergeant for cycle 97E6.

If AFPC discovers any adverse factors during or subsequent to supplemental consideration that are separate and apart, and unrelated to the issues involved in this application, that would have rendered the applicant ineligible for the promotion, such information will be documented and presented to the board for a final determination on the individual's qualification for the promotion.

If supplemental promotion consideration results in the selection for promotion to the higher grade, immediately after such promotion the records shall be corrected to show that he was promoted to the higher grade on the date of rank established by the supplemental promotion and that he is entitled to all pay, allowances, and benefits of such grade as of that date.

_________________________________________________________________

The following members of the Board considered this application in Executive Session on 15 July 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 25 February 1999, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPPWB, dated 24 March 1999.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPP, dated 12 April 1999
   Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated  April 1999.
   Exhibit F.  Letter, Applicant, dated 10 May 1999.