RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  01-00937
		INDEX CODE:  111.00

		COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

The Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) rendered for the period 1 April 1997 through 5 January 1998, be declared void.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

There was lack of supervision that led to the inaccurate marking in Section III, Item 7, of the contested EPR.  He held a position higher than that of the rater when the EPR closed out; therefore, the rater should not have signed Section V.  The rater was removed from his position in September 1997 and demoted to technical sergeant (TSgt) on 10 October 1997.  He (the applicant) assumed the position of Non-Commissioned Officer In Charge (NCOIC).  The EPR in question was signed 54 days after supervision on the next EPR began which was on 28 February 1998.  For whatever reason, his former rater did not write an EPR on him before his demotion.  He states that he was not aware that a change of rater (COR) was completed to show that he had a new rater.  He asked about it, but was told that the date of supervision would probably be back-dated.  He checked his records several times to confirm that an EPR was not done.  He then found out that the rater at that time wrote an EPR on him as a TSgt.  He not only outranked him, but he held a higher position.  He spoke with the rater and the indorser at that time and they both agreed to rewrite the EPR.  He states that he would like his accomplishments during that time frame to be a part of his records. 

In support of his appeal, the applicant provides the contested EPR dated 5 January 1998, ERAB’s decision, dated 23 June 1999, a letter from the rater, dated 24 March 1999, 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 master sergeant.

The applicant appealed the contested report under the provisions of AFI 36-2401 and the appeal was considered by the Evaluation Reports Appeal Board (ERAB) which declined to formally review the appeal and directed its return without action.  The Board was unable to make a decision in this case without complete documentation and a substitute report.  The applicant requested the EPR be resubmitted or have two letters attached to the EPR as "Memo of Mitigation.”

EPR profile since 1991 reflects the following:

          PERIOD ENDING	OVERALL EVALUATION

           31 Mar 96                     5
           31 Mar 97                     5
          * 5 Jan 98                     5
           30 Jun 98                     5
           30 Jun 99                     5
           30 Jun 00                     5

     *  Contested report.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The Chief, Inquiries/AFBCMR Section, Enlisted Promotion & Military Testing Branch, AFPC/DPPPWB, states that the first time the contested report was considered in the promotion process was cycle 99E7 to master sergeant (promotions effective August 1999 - July 2000).  Should the AFBCMR void the report in its entirety, or upgrade block, 7, providing he is otherwise eligible, the applicant would not be entitled to supplemental promotion consideration for cycle 99E7.  The overall rating is a “5,” the highest rating, and his score would not increase if the AFBCMR grants the request.  The applicant became a select during the 00E7 cycle with a date of rank and effective date of 1 April 2001.  It would serve no useful purpose to provide him with supplemental consideration for the 99E7 cycle as he could not be selected.

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

The Chief, Performance Evaluation Section, Directorate of Personnel Program Management, AFPC/DPPPEP, also reviewed this application and states that the member contends the EPR is unjust because he received a front-side markdown in Section III, Item 7.  He included a memorandum from his rater who states, “I transferred to a new duty section…I was unable to examine any improvement on his written communication skills…it’s highly probable that this rating was reached unfairly.”  The rater does not specifically state he made an error on the EPR.  Even if he did, it would not be appropriate to void the EPR based solely on that front-side mark down.  When requesting an entire report be voided, the applicant must take into consideration that any complimentary comments on the contested report will also be removed from the records if the request is approved.

The applicant further contends the report should be voided because he outranked the technical sergeant who wrote the EPR (he contends his rater was demoted to technical sergeant effective 10 October 1997).  As the ERAB pointed out in their letter, a rater may be in a grade equal to or higher than the ratee in the ratee’s rating chain.  However, the rater must be in a supervisory position that is higher than the ratee.  The organization chart the applicant included (an excerpt from an Air Force directive) does not prove anything without a letter from the commander indicating who filled each position.

If the AFBCMR decides relief is warranted, they do not believe it would be in the applicant’s best interest to void the EPR (doing so would erase an entire year of accomplishments).  The report can be corrected administratively by changing the rater’s grade to master sergeant, closing the EPR on 9 October 1997 (the day before the member was demoted and moved to another section), and the “number days” supervision to 192.  Making these changes would correct the perceived errors on the EPR and maintain the integrity of his record.

Air Force policy is that an evaluation report is accurate as written when it becomes a matter of record.  To effectively challenge an EPR, it is necessary to hear from all the members of the rating chain-not only for support, but also for clarification/explanation.  The applicant has failed to provide any 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 Military Equal Opportunity is appropriate, but not provided in this case.  Therefore, they recommend denial of the applicant’s request.

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

_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

On 18 May 2001, copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant for review and response within thirty (30) days.  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.	Sufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of probable error or injustice.  After thoroughly reviewing the evidence of record, we note the statement from the applicant's rater who indicates he transferred to a new duty section and was unable to examine any improvements in the applicant’s skills; therefore, he rendered his assessment from previous feedback performance sheets and not the actual observance of the applicant’s ability to increase his skills.  The rater believes the rating was reached unfairly.  Further, we believe there is some doubt whether the rater should have rendered the contested report considering his new duty title following his demotion.  In view of the above, the evidence presented raises sufficient doubt regarding the accuracy of the contested report, and that such doubt should be resolved in his favor.  Therefore, we recommend that the entire report be voided and removed from his records.  As indicated by AFPC/DPPPWB, by voiding the contested report, the applicant would not be entitled to 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 April 1997 through 5 January 1998, be, and hereby is, declared void and removed from his records.

_________________________________________________________________

he following members of the Board considered this application in Executive Session on 26 June 2001, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

		Panel Chair
		Member
		Member

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

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 26 March 2001, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPWB, dated 13 April 2001.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPEP, dated 18 April 2001.
   Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 18 May 2001.

			
			Panel Chair

AFBCMR 01-00937

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 XXXXX, be corrected to show that the Enlisted Performance Report, AF Form 910, rendered for the period 1 April 1997 through 5 January 1998, be, and hereby is, declared void and removed from his records.

		
		Director
		Air Force Review Boards Agency