RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  01-01274
		INDEX CODE:  111.02
		COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

The Enlisted Performance Report (EPR), rendered for the period 9 January 1989 through 8 January 1990, be changed to reflect a promotion recommendation of “5.”
_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The EPR rating of “4” is inconsistent with the awards earned during the contested reporting period.  Awards include Resource Plans Division Professional Non-Commissioned Officer of the Year, Air Force Commendation Medal and nomination for TAC Outstanding Logistics Technician of the Year.  

In support of his application, the applicant submits a copy of the EPR in question along with other EPRs, a supportive statement from his rater and a personal statement from the commander.  The applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A. 

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Information extracted from the Personnel Data System indicates that the applicant entered on active duty on 26 September 1983, and is currently serving in the grade of TSgt (E-6), with a date of rank of 1 February 1996.  

The following is a resume of the applicant’s APR/EPR ratings, commencing with the report closing 8 January 1989.

	Period Ending                         Overall Evaluation

	 8 Jan 1989					9
	 8 Jan 1990 *					4
	 8 Jan 1991					5
	 5 Oct 1991					5
	 5 Oct 1992					5
	 5 Oct 1993					5
	 1 May 1994					5
	12 Mar 1995					5
	12 Mar 1996					5
	31 Dec 1996					5
	 1 Jun 1997					5
	28 Apr 1998					5
	28 Apr 1999					5
	22 Mar 2000					5
	 2 Jan 2001					5

Note:  * - Contested Report

A similar appeal by the applicant was considered and denied in 1991 by the Evaluation Reports Appeal Board (ERAB).

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The Chief, Performance Evaluation Section, AFPC/DPPPEP, reviewed this application and recommends denial.  DPPPEP states that citations are not specific enough to offset the comments and ratings on a report.  The indorser approved the awards before they were submitted and was knowledgeable of them when assessing the applicant’s performance.  In addition, the rater did not provide any evidence that his rating rights were violated.  Air Force policy requires indorsers, reviewers and commanders to review evaluation reports for quality and to control inflationary tendencies.  These officials must reject poorly prepared reports and downgrade or reject inflated reports.  If, after discussion, a disagreement remains, the disagreeing evaluator marks the nonconcur block and marks the block they determine more accurately reflects the applicant’s performance.  The final evaluator’s decision is then considered the overall rating.  It is Air Force policy that an evaluation report is accurate as written when it becomes a matter of record.  In DPPPEP’s opinion, the applicant did not provide sufficient evidence to prove the rating should be changed (See Exhibit C).

The Chief, Inquiries/AFBCMR Section, Enlisted Promotion & Military Testing Branch, AFPC/DPPPWB, also reviewed this application and advises that the contested report was first considered in the 92A6 promotion process to technical sergeant.  The applicant became a select for the 95E6 cycle with a date of rank and effective date of 1 February 1996.  Promotion cycle 95E6 was the last cycle the contested EPR was eligible for consideration.  This evaluation is at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on 22 June 2001 for review and comment.  As of this date, this office has received no response.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

1.  The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by existing law or regulations.

2.  The application was not timely filed; however, it is in the interest of justice to excuse the failure to timely file.

3.  Sufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of probable error or injustice with respect to the rater’s rating on the EPR closing 9 January 1989.  The rater’s statement was sufficient to persuade us that some doubt exists concerning the accuracy of the contested report.  We believe it is significant that this was the first report the applicant received under the new rating system.  It is entirely possible that the report was rendered on the basis of an organizational policy to award the highest ratings based on the member’s proximity to promotion eligibility rather than the applicant’s duty performance and the awards he earned during the reporting period.  Furthermore, and more importantly, we have no reason to doubt the veracity of the rater’s comments to the effect that he was precluded from exercising his independent judgment in assigning the applicant’s promotion recommendation rating and that it was his intention to rate the applicant as a “5.”  In view of the above, we recommend that the applicant’s records be corrected as indicated below.

4.  We considered the applicant’s request that the report closing 8 January 1990 be upgraded to an overall promotion recommendation of “5.”  In addition to changing the rater’s rating, such action would affect the indorser’s rating and the commander’s concurrence.  However, we do not find the evidence provided sufficient to warrant this relief.  While we may have been inclined to give the applicant the benefit of the doubt by voiding the report, without the support of the later rating officials, we are not inclined to upgrade or otherwise change their assessments.  Furthermore, because the rating by the final evaluator is considered the overall rating, and since the overall rating was the only factor under consideration for the applicant’s promotion to technical sergeant, granting supplemental considerations on the basis of the correction we propose would serve no useful purpose.

_________________________________________________________________

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 9 January 1989 through 8 January 1990, be amended in Section IV, Promotion Recommendation, by deleting the marking in the “4” block and placing a marking in the “5” block of the Rater’s Recommendation; and, in Section VI, Indorser’s Comments, by deleting the marking in the “Concur” block and inserting a marking to indicate the indorser nonconcurred with the rater’s rating.

_________________________________________________________________

The following members of the Board considered this application in Executive Session on 16 August 2001, under the provisions of AFI 36‑2603:

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

     Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 2 May 2001 w/atchs.
     Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPEP, dated 19 June 2001.
     Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/ DPPPWB, dated 22 May 2001.
     Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 22 June 2001.

                                  
                                  Panel Chair

AFBCMR 01-01274

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 9 January 1989 through 8 January 1990 be, and hereby is, declared void and removed from his records.   

	It is further directed that he be provided supplemental consideration for promotion to the grade of technical sergeant for all appropriate cycles commencing with cycle 92A6.

	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 applicant 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 he was promoted to the higher grade effective and with a date of rank as established by the supplemental promotion and that he is entitled to all pay, allowances, and benefits of such grade as of that date.

                                                                            Director
                                                                            Air Force Review Boards Agency

AFBCMR 01-01274

MEMORANDUM FOR EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, AIR FORCE BOARD FOR
               CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS (AFBCMR)

SUBJECT:  AFBCMR Application of 

	I have carefully reviewed all aspects of this case and agree with the opinion of the Board regarding the accuracy of the contested report.  I believe there is no reason to doubt the rater's comments that he was precluded from exercising his independent judgment in assigning the applicant’s promotion recommendation rating and that it was his intention to rate the applicant as a “5.”  I also agree with the panel that the evidence does not support an outright upgrading of the assessments of the indorser and the commander.  However, it is my opinion that, because of the apparent coercion involved in the completion of this report, to merely upgrade the rater’s rating does not provide the applicant adequate relief.  In my estimation and although the applicant has not requested such action, the only way to afford him proper and fitting relief is to completely remove from his record any evidence of the irregular rating practices used in the preparation of the contested report would be to remove this document from his record, in its entirety.  In addition, he should be granted supplemental consideration for promotion to the grade of technical sergeant for all appropriate cycles commencing with cycle 92A6.  

				
				Director
				Air Force Review Boards Agency