RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  01-00348
		INDEX CODE:  126.00

	APPLICANT	COUNSEL:  NONE

	SSN	HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) for the period 6 Mar 97 through 5 Mar 98 be removed from his records.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

His rater, MSgt D. was coerced/influenced into changing the overall rating on his EPR.

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 staff sergeant.

The applicant submitted an appeal under the provisions of AFI 36-2401, Correcting Officer and Enlisted Evaluation Reports, which was denied by the Evaluation Reports Appeal Board (ERAB).

Applicant’s EPR profile since 1995 reflects the following:

	PERIOD ENDING			EVALUATION OF POTENTIAL

	    23 Feb 95					5
	     5 Mar 96					5
	     5 Mar 97					5
	   * 5 Mar 98					4
	     5 Mar 99					5
	     5 Mar 00					5

*Contested report.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The Chief, Inquiries/AFBCMR Section, Enlisted Promotions & Military Testing Branch, AFPC/DPPPWB, reviewed this application and stated the first time the contested report was considered in the promotion process was cycle 99E6 to Technical Sergeant.  If the Board voids the report in its entirety, or upgrades the overall rating, providing he is otherwise eligible, the applicant will be entitled to supplemental consideration beginning with 99E6 cycle.  The applicant will not become a selectee during cycles 99E6 or 00E6 if the Board grants the request.  The applicant’s EPR will not be considered again for promotion until 01E6.  However, if favorable results are received by 1 May 01, supplemental consideration will not be required.

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

The Chief, Performance Evaluation Section, Directorate of Personnel Program Management, AFPC/DPPPEP, reviewed this application and states the applicant filed an appeal to the ERAB to remove the EPR and his request was denied.  The applicant included with his request the decision memorandum from the ERAB.  DPPPEP concurs with their finding and further states that under the governing AFI 36-2403, The Enlisted Evaluation System, the Air Force charges evaluators with discussing differences in ratings, reviewing reports for quality and controlling inflationary tendencies.  The rater stated that he and the additional rater agreed the applicant deserved the overall rating of 5, but that two individuals outside of the rating chain threatened to attach a letter of disapproval if they did not change the overall rating to a 4.  To prove allegations of coercion, clear evidence must exist proving the superior violated the evaluator’s rating rights.  In the applicant’s case the two individuals were not in his chain of command.  DPPPEP does not believe the evaluator’s rating rights were violated and furthermore there is no such thing as a “letter of disapproval.”

Air Force policy is that an evaluation report is accurate as written when it becomes a matter of record.  When challenging an EPR, it is necessary to hear from all in the member’s rating chain--not only for support, but also for clarification/explanation.  The applicant included a memorandum from his rater, however, he did not provide support from the other members of the rating chain or official findings from any other source proving coercion occurred.  DPPPEP recommends denying the applicant’s request (Exhibit D).

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on 6 Apr 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.  Applicant’s contentions are duly noted, as is the statement from the rater; however, this statement does not persuade us that the applicant was rated unfairly or that the report is in error.  The rater states that the evaluation was a result of being told by the Chief of Maintenance and a chief master sergeant, presumably within the organization, that if he (the rater) did not lower the rating, they would attach a “letter of disapproval” to the contested report.  However, there is no substantiation from either the indorser or the commander that there was pressure put on the rater to downgrade the contested report.  We therefore agree with the opinion and recommendation of the Air Force and adopt their rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of either an error or an injustice.  In view of the foregoing, we find no compelling basis upon which to recommend granting the requested relief.

_________________________________________________________________

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 31 May 2001, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

				Panel Chair
				Member
				Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

	Exhibit A.	DD Form 149, dated 30 Jan 01, w/atchs.
	Exhibit B.	Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
	Exhibit C.	Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPPWB, dated 20 Feb 01.
	Exhibit D.	Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPPEP, dated 19 Mar 01.
	Exhibit E.	Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 6 Apr 01.

					
					Panel Chair