RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBERS:  01-00019
		INDEX CODE 111.02 111.03 111.05
		COUNSEL:  None

	 	HEARING DESIRED:  No

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

The referral Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) closing 30 Apr 96 be declared void and removed from her record.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The report did not reflect her performance during the reporting period. Her indorser continually praised her performance as a recruiter. However, in Oct 95 when she decided not to continue in recruiting, he turned against her despite her maintaining the same level of performance.  Her performance feedback session in Jul 95 indicated she needed little or no improvement. This was the only feedback she received during this period. Her signature on the computer printout indicating she had another feedback session in Nov 95 was forged. Her rater originally gave her an overall rating of “4” but, after meeting with the indorser, reduced it to a “2” and changed the evaluation of performance in Section III.  After the rater and indorser left and she returned to her previous career field, she received a “firewalled” report in Sep 96. The same squadron commander signed both reports. She did not appeal the 30 Apr 96 EPR at the time because she was afraid it would end her career.

The rater, the squadron commander, and a master sergeant who was assigned to the same squadron provide supporting statements. Also provided is a copy of the EPR signed by only the rater on 30 Apr 96. It has an overall rating of “4” and a negative comment in Section V. 

The complete appeal package is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant is currently serving in the regular Air Force in the grade of staff sergeant (date of rank: 1 Aug 90).  She was assigned to Recruiting Service on 5 Oct 92.  During the period in question, she was a recruiter assigned to the 337th Recruiting Squadron at Sumpter, SC.

On 10 Oct 95, the applicant was evaluated at the three-year point for retention in Recruiting Service for an additional two years. The applicant opted to be returned to her Primary Air Force Specialty Code (PAFSC) at the end of her fourth year.  On 12 Oct 95, the rater recommended the applicant for retention; however, on 16 Oct 95, the indorser did not.

On 13 Feb 96, the applicant was notified of the squadron commander's intent to impose nonjudicial punishment upon her for negligently failing to follow established squadron and flight supervisor policies to validate monthly applicant qualifications from about 1 Oct 95 to about 27 Dec 95, and knowingly making a false statement to [the EPR indorser] that she had conducted a final “entering active duty” briefing with an applicant on 13 Dec 95. On 6 Feb 96, after consulting with counsel, applicant waived her right to a trial by court-martial, requested a personal appearance and submitted a written presentation. On 13 Feb 96, her squadron commander found her guilty and imposed punishment in the form of forfeiture of $100.00 in pay and a reduction to senior airman suspended until 12 Aug 96.  Applicant did not appeal the punishment.  The Article 15 was filed in her Unfavorable Information File (UIF).

The contested report was referred to the applicant on 13 May 96. The overall rating was “2” and Section III indicated she was unacceptable in the “Conduct On/Off Duty” performance factor and ineffective in the “Supervise/Lead” performance factor. Also, sections V and VI contained negative comments. She provided a rebuttal on 30 May 96.

Except for the contested report and a 2 Dec 91 EPR having an overall rating of “4,” all of the applicant’s performance reports since Dec 90 have had overall ratings of “5.”

Since the Article 15’s suspended reduction expired on 12 Aug 96, prior to the 31 Dec 96 Promotion Eligibility Cutoff Date (PECD) for promotion cycle 97E6, the Article 15 did not affect the applicant’s eligibility for promotion consideration to technical sergeant for that cycle.  However, she was not selected.

The applicant filed three similar appeals under the provisions of AFI 36-2401.  The Evaluation Reports Appeal Board (ERAB) denied her requests on 8 Oct 99, 4 Oct 00 and 8 Nov 00.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

HQ AFPC/DPPPWB advises that the first time the contested report was considered in the promotion process was for cycle 97E6.  If the report is voided, the applicant would be entitled to supplemental promotion consideration beginning with cycle 97E6, provided she is otherwise eligible.  However, she would not become a selectee until cycle 99E6.

A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit C.

HQ AFPC/DPPPEP reviewed the appeal and provided rationale for recommending denial.  The applicant received nonjudicial punishment during the reporting period for two violations of the UCMJ. The author finds it strange that neither of her evaluators bothered to address the violations, or her receipt of the Article 15 in their statements. While she may believe the Article 15 and the referral EPR were a result of her decision to leave recruiting, she did not provide official documentation proving coercion or reprisal occurred.   

A complete copy of the evaluation, with attachment, is at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Complete copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on 2 Mar 01 for review and comment within 30 days.  On 13 Apr 01, the applicant requested that her case be temporarily withdrawn so that she could prepare a response. By letter dated 17 Apr 01, the AFBCMR Staff advised the applicant that her case had been administratively closed in accordance with her request.  On 18 Dec 01, the applicant requested that her case be reopened and presented to the Board; however, she did not submit any additional comments or documentation.

The applicant's facsimiles are at Exhibit F. 

_________________________________________________________________

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 to warrant voiding the referral EPR. The Board majority did note the Article 15 the applicant received during the reporting period and the fact that the supporting statements did not refer to it.  However, we are disturbed by the Air Force's rather cavalier dismissal of the applicant's assertion that her signature on the feedback notification was forged. The Board majority is persuaded that the signature is not hers and the possibility exists that she did not, in fact, receive feedback.  While lack of feedback, in and of itself, does not normally warrant voiding a performance report, the majority believes the circumstances of this case, taken in their entirety, support resolving any doubt in behalf of the applicant.  The referral report is an anomaly in her performance history and we have no basis to question the integrity of the rater and the squadron commander when they assert that it is inaccurate and should be voided. Therefore, the majority of the Board recommends that the report be voided and the applicant be afforded supplemental promotion consideration.

_________________________________________________________________

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 Form 910, rendered for the period 1 May 1995 through 30 April 1996, be declared void and removed from her records.  

It is further recommended that she be provided supplemental consideration for promotion to the grade of technical sergeant for all appropriate cycles beginning with 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 individual 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 she was promoted to the higher grade on the date of rank established by the supplemental promotion and that she 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 16 January 2002, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

			Mr. XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX, Panel Chair
			Ms. XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX, Member
			Ms. XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX, Member

The majority of the Board voted to correct the records, as recommended. Ms. XXXXX voted to deny the appeal, but does not wish to submit a Minority Report. The following documentary evidence was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 28 Dec 00, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPPWB, dated 18 Jan 01.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPPEP, dated 14 Feb 01.
   Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 2 Mar 01.
   Exhibit F.  Facsimiles, Applicant, dated 13 Apr & 18 Dec 01.

AFBCMR 01-00019

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 the Enlisted Performance Report, AF Form 910, rendered for the period 1 May 1995 through 30 April 1996, be, and hereby is, declared void and removed from her records.  

	It is further directed that she be provided supplemental consideration for promotion to the grade of technical sergeant for all appropriate cycles beginning with 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 individual 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 she was promoted to the higher grade on the date of rank established by the supplemental promotion and that she is entitled to all pay, allowances, and benefits of such grade as of that date.