RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  01-00201
				INDEX CODE:  111.02

	APPLICANT	COUNSEL:  None

	SSN		HEARING DESIRED:  No

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

The Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) closing 31 May 90 be removed and replaced with the “5” EPR closing 31 May 90 and in Section V of the replacement EPR change the statement to read:  “Ratee has established that feedback wasn’t provided IAW AFR 39-62.”  He would also like supplemental promotion consideration for cycles 99E8 and 00E8.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The ratings in Section III and IV were given in part to comply with rating quotas.  The rater misled the indorser into believing the lower ratings and watered down comments were warranted.  The rater did not perform mandatory Performance Feedback in accordance with AFR 39-62. 

The applicant feels his EPR with the overall “4” rating had a negative impact on his board scores when he met the 99E8 and 00E8 SMSgt Boards.

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 master sergeant.

The 99E8 Senior Master Sergeant (SMSgt) Evaluation Board convened on 1 Feb 99 and the promotion selections were announced 10 Mar 99.  The applicant’s board score for the 99E8 board was 397.50.  His total score was 633.39 and the score required for selection was 647.77.  The 00E8 board convened on 14 Feb 00 and the selections were announced on 15 Mar 00.  His 00E8 board score was 345.00.  His total score was 593.21 and the score required for selection was 639.35.

The applicant filed an appeal for his EPR closing out 31 Jul 98 under the provisions of AFI 36-2401, Correcting Officer and Enlisted Evaluations Reports.  The Evaluation Reports Appeal Board (ERAB) ruled in his favor on this application.  The applicant elected to appeal directly to the BCMR regarding his EPR closing out 31 May 90 due to lack of support from that rater and a lack of support from his current commander regarding supplemental promotion consideration.

EPR profile since 1990 reflects the following:

			PERIOD ENDING 			OVERALL EVALUATION

			 *31 May 90					4
			  10 Jan 91					5
			  10 Jan 92					5
			  07 Jun 92					5
			  15 Nov 92					5
			  15 Nov 93					5
			  31 May 94					5
			  31 May 95					5
			  31 Jan 96					5
			  22 Oct 96					5
			  22 Oct 97					5
			  31 Jul 98					5
			  06 Jun 99					5
			  06 Jun 00					5

* Contested report.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR STAFF EVALUATION:

The Chief, Inquiries/BCMR Section, Enlisted Promotion & Mil Testing Branch, AFPC/DPPPWB, reviewed this application and based on the applicant’s date of rank (DOR) for master sergeant, the first cycle he was considered for SMSgt was the 99E8 cycle.  The applicant missed promotion selection by 14.38 points for the 99E8 cycle and 46.14 for 00E8 cycle.  The applicant will compete five more times for SMSgt before he reaches his high year tenure of Sep 05 providing he is recommended and is otherwise eligible.

The selection board uses the whole person concept in subjectively assessing each servicemember’s selection folder, giving careful consideration to job performance, professional competence, leadership, job responsibility, breadth of experience, awards, decorations, and professional military and academic education.  Ten years of EPRs are maintained in the selection folder and this is done to show the progression of a servicemember’s career.

According to AFI 36-2502, Airman Promotion Program, Table 2.5 and HQ AFPC/DPP 081945Z message effective 22 Oct 00 supplemental promotion consideration will be granted on a case by case basis.  The purpose of this change is to reduce the number of “after the fact” changes that are initiated in an effort to get a second opportunity for promotion.  The applicant did not take appropriate corrective or follow-up action before the original board convened for the 99E8 and 00E8 cycles.  Although the applicant submitted with his application an AF Form 948, Application for Correction/Removal of Evaluation Reports, he did not submit this request to the office of primary responsibility for EPRs, presumably because the Squadron Section Commander recommended disapproval of the request.  The contested EPR will not be considered for the 01E8 cycle because it is outside of the 10-year period of EPRs contained in the selection folder.  Based on the rationale provided they recommend denying the applicant’s request.  (Exhibit C)

The Chief, Evaluation Programs Branch, AFPC/DPPPE, reviewed this application and stated the applicant contends his overall promotion recommendation of 4 was a result of a rating quota system established by the Chief of Staff of the Air Force (CSAF) and was adhered to by his rating chain.  This is speculation on the part of the applicant.  During this time period the Air Force provided rating expectations and not quotas, as a guideline for evaluators to use regarding appropriate ratings.  It is noted in the applicant’s own submission that the CSAF explains statistics provided regarding Enlisted Evaluation Systems (EES) ratings and indorsement ”…are not quotas.  They are to provide raters with an understanding of general expectations.  Expectations give a general idea of what distributions should be by grade.  The rating expectations are a guide and everyone should get the rating they earned and deserve.”  The CSAF is clear, rating quotas did not exist in the Air Force. 

The applicant alleges that the rater misled the indorser into believing the lower ratings and watered down comments were warranted, but he did not provide any proof to justify this allegation.  The applicant did provide a letter of recommendation from the commander supporting the upgrading of the EPR ratings and changes to his original comments.  The commander has not provided clear-cut evidence or specific incidents on how he was misled by the rater.  The commander goes on to state that he knows the whole story and that he would like the opportunity to correct an injustice.  There has not been any evidence provided to tell what the whole story is and the commander has only addressed this issue in broad general terms.  

The applicant also alleges he did not receive mandatory feedback from his rater, which would contribute to invalidating the EPR as currently written and filed.  This contention was never fully supported by the applicant or the commander.  It is unclear whether the commander researched the feedback issue or was persuaded by the applicant’s request to him for support.  According to AFR 39-62 a rater’s failure to conduct a required or requested feedback session will not, of itself, invalidate any subsequent EPR.

The applicant has not proven the EPR is an inaccurate evaluation of his performance during that rating period.  It is reasonable to assume the commander worked closely with the NCOIC of his orderly room, especially if the NCOIC filled in for the squadron section commander for extended periods of time during her absence.  The commander would have been in a good position to properly evaluate the applicant’s duty performance.  It is unreasonable to conclude the commander now, over 10 years later, has a better understanding of the applicant’s duty performance for that time period.  An evaluator’s willingness to change a report is not a valid reason for doing so unless there is clear evidence of an error or injustice.  DPPPE finds no errors or injustice regarding the contested EPR, therefore they recommend denying the applicant’s request.  (Exhibit D)

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR STAFF EVALUATION:

Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on 9 Mar 01, for review and response.  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 timely filed.

3.	Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of probable error or injustice.  After thoroughly reviewing the documentation submitted with this appeal, we are not persuaded that the contested report is an inaccurate assessment of the applicant's performance during the contested time period.  The applicant asserts, and his First Sergeant concurs, that the contested report was written as a result of a quota system employed by the applicant's squadron and wing; however, the Board finds insufficient documentation to support this contention.  Further, we note that the First Sergeant was not tasked with rendering an assessment of the applicant's performance during this time period.  Additionally, the statement from the indorser is duly noted; however, we note that the indorser does not specify what the "whole story" is; rather, it appears that he signed a memorandum prepared by the applicant indicating what the applicant's duties were during the contested time period.  In the opinion of the Board, if the applicant were filling in for his supervisor, the squadron section commander, the squadron commander would have been aware of the duties and how well the applicant performed them.  It appears that the rating chain members provided their honest assessment of the applicant's performance and promotion potential.  In the absence of more convincing evidence, the Board finds no basis upon which to recommend granting the relief sought in this application.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:

The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of probable material error or injustice; that the application was denied without a personal appearance; and that 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 this application in Executive Session on 8 May 2001, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

				Panel Chair
				Member
				Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

	Exhibit A.	DD Form 149, 19 Jan 01, w/atchs.
	Exhibit B.	Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
	Exhibit C.	Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPPWB, dated 7 Feb 01.
	Exhibit D.	Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPPE, dated 20 Feb 01.
	Exhibit E.	Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 9 Mar 01.

					
					Panel Chair