RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  01-01228
		INDEX CODE:  111.05

		COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

The Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) rendered for the period 2 January 1998 to 1 January 1999, be declared void.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The rating he received was invalid due to the fact that his rater and indorser only rated him on the 4½ months that the rater was on station instead of the full 365 day rating period.  He believes he and his former supervisor had a personality conflict that led to a poor rating.  He states he worked long and hard to make a better squadron and tried to lead by example.  The “2” rating he received was a form of punishment and not an accurate assessment of his abilities and dedication to the squadron and the United States Air Force.

In support of his appeal, the applicant provided a personal statement, the contested EPR closing 1 January 1999, the Evaluation Reports Appeal Board (ERAB) Decision, dated 22 October 1999, letter from former commander (Colonel B), dated 9 September 2000, letter from former commander (Colonel S), dated 19 September 2000, letter from former supervisor (Master Sergeant P), dated 21 April 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 staff sergeant.

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

EPR profile since 1994 reflects the following:

	PERIOD ENDING	EVALUATION OF POTENTIAL

		30 Aug 94		5
		 1 Jan 96		3
		 1 Jan 97		5
		 1 Jan 98		4
	 *  1 Jan 99		2
		31 Dec 99		5
		31 Dec 00		5

* Contested report

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The Chief, Inquiries/AFBCMR Section, Enlisted Promotion and Military Testing Branch, AFPC/DPPPWB, reviewed this application and states that the first time the contested report was considered in the promotion process was cycle 00E6 to technical sergeant (promotions effective August 2000 - July 2001).  Should the AFBCMR void the report in its entirely, or upgrade the overall rating, providing he is otherwise eligible the applicant would normally be entitled to supplemental promotion consideration beginning with cycle 00E6.  However, because the applicant would not be selected to the grade of technical sergeant during this cycle, and was selected during the next cycle, 01E6, with a date of rank of 1 August 2001, it would serve no useful purpose to provide him supplemental consideration for the 00E6 cycle.

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

The Chief, Evaluation Programs Branch, Directorate of Personnel Program Management, HQ AFPC/DPPPEP, also reviewed this application and states that the applicant has not provided new supporting documentation to prove his contentions.  He has merely raised suspicion of a conflict between himself and his immediate rating chain with supporting letters from other non-commissioned officers (NCOs) and previous supervisors/commanders.  In worker-supervisor relationships, some disagreements are likely to occur since a worker must abide by a supervisor’s policies and decisions.  Personnel who do not perform at expected standards or require close supervision may believe that an evaluator is personally biased; however, the conflict generated by this personal attention is usually professional rather than personal.  Applicant should provide firsthand evidence that clearly shows how the conflict prevented the evaluator from preparing a fair and accurate report (i.e. IG report, MEO report, etc).

Although the applicant may feel evaluators have over stressed isolated incidents or a short period of substandard performance or conduct, the evaluators are obliged to consider such incidents, their significance, and the frequency with which they occurred in assessing performance and potential.  Only the evaluators know how much an incident influenced the report; therefore, the opinions of individuals outside the rating chain are not relevant.  The applicant has not provided any documentation to prove the report should be voided.  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:

On 31 August 2001 copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to 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 reviewing the supporting documentation submitted by the applicant, we believe that some doubt exists as to whether the rater and indorser were biased in their assessment of applicant’s performance due to a possible personality conflict between the applicant and these evaluators.  In our opinion, this possible conflict may have adversely influenced these evaluators’ objectivity in assessing the applicant’s performance.  In this respect, we note the statement submitted from the reviewing commander who indicates that the contested report is inconsistent and is a “flawed representation of [the applicant’s] performance and capabilities.”  The commander indicated that she non-concurred with the report and submitted an AF Form 77, stating she was advised by her First Sergeant that this would remove the contested report from referral status.  The commander notes that the applicant and/or his subordinates violated COMSEC procedures on three occasions, however, these violations were not the norm and were handled administratively; therefore, she believed the applicant’s overall performance should be considered as satisfactory.  Further, the statement from the applicant’s former commander, during a portion of the contested time period, reveals that personalities possibly played a part in the ratings on the contested report.  In view of the foregoing, and in an effort to offset any possibility of an injustice, we believe the contested EPR should be declared void and removed from his records.

_________________________________________________________________

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 2 January 1998 through 1 January 1999, be declared void and removed from his records.

_________________________________________________________________

The following members of the Board considered this application in Executive Session on 11 October 2001, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

The following documentary evidence was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 26 Apr 01, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPWB, dated 2 Aug 01, w/atchs.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPEP, dated 27 Aug 01.
   Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 31 Aug 01.

			
			Panel Chair

AFBCMR 01-01228

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 2 January 1998 through 1 January 1999, be, and hereby is, declared void and removed from his records.

		
		Director
		Air Force Review Boards Agency