RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  01-02332
				INDEX CODE:  111.02

	APPLICANT	COUNSEL:  None

	SSN		HEARING DESIRED:  Yes

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

The Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) covering the rating period 2 Jun 97 through 1 Jun 98 be corrected or removed from her records.  She is also requesting retroactive promotion to E-6, appropriate back pay and allowances and any other such relief the Board deems appropriate.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The EPR was not an accurate assessment of her work performance for the rating period in question.  She was performing the same identical duties but at an increased level than the previous year because of manning issues.  

Upon receipt of the downgraded EPR, she questioned her rater as to why her rating was lowered from the previous year.  His response was that training was an issue and he felt that she was not performing her duties at the level he thought she was capable of performing.

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's EPR profile reflects the following:

			PERIOD ENDING 			OVERALL EVALUATION

			   1 Jun 95					5
			   1 Jun 96					5
			   1 Jun 97					5

			  *1 Jun 98					4
			   1 Jun 99					5
			   1 Jun 00					5
			   1 Jun 01					5

* Contested report.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPPWB stated the applicant's EPR was considered in the promotion process for cycle 00E6 to technical sergeant.  Further if the Board voids the EPR in its entirety, or upgrades the overall rating, providing the applicant is otherwise eligible, the applicant would be entitled to supplemental consideration beginning with the 00E6 cycle.  The applicant would not be a select for the 00E6 cycle if the request is granted, but she would become a select for 01E6 promotion cycle pending favorable data verification and recommendation of the commander (Exhibit C).

AFPC/DPPPEP states that the applicant received a "5" rating the previous year by the same rater, however, that does not have bearing on the rating she received the following year.  The EPR evaluates the performance during a specified period and reflects the performance, conduct and potential of the member at that time, in that position.  The applicant was unable to maintain the same performance level due to the workload increase in the office.  The is confirmed by the position paper that SSGT 1. prepared requesting that the applicant be replaced by SSGT 2.

The applicant contends that the EPR is unjust because her rater downgraded the report due to training, which the rater failed to provide.  But, in her "Background on 1 Jun 98 EPR" she states "During this reporting period, training was never held to his satisfaction.  I did the best I could…we all worked very hard…but it was simply a situation where we did not have the resources to do everything that needed to be done."  The applicant is saying that the training was her responsibility and her supervisor was not pleased with the quality of her training, thus contradicting her contention that training was the supervisor's responsibility.

The additional rater feels that after discussing the report with the applicant, her supervisor, his predecessor and other senior leaders and, after having another opportunity to supervise the applicant, the report should be upgraded to a "5" rating.  However, retrospective statements from evaluators prepared years after a report has closed out, following period of improved performance, does not carry as much weight as assessments made when the facts and circumstances were fresh in their minds.

Air Force policy is that an evaluation report is accurate as written when it becomes a matter of record.  The evidence the applicant has provided does not support the assertion that the EPR is erroneous or unjust.  The documents submitted in support of her request are commendable, but these individuals were not in a position to assess the applicant's entire duty performance.  Therefore, based on the evidence submitted they recommend denying the applicant’s request.

A complete copy of their evaluation is attached at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant reviewed the Air Force evaluations and states she concurs with the recommendation of DPPPWB.

The evaluation prepared by DPPPEP concedes that her request is timely and that the workload in her office tripled, but after this point she feels it is a negative boilerplate response.  The assertion that she contradicted herself is not true; it is the responsibility of the supervisor to train the people he supervises.  Her supervisor essentially admits this in his position paper and the performance feedback worksheet.  She feels with the increased workload of the office that her supervisor was frustrated; but why should she be punished with a downgraded EPR when she was doing more than three times as much work.  She states that DPPPEP gives more credibility to her supervisor rather than the indorsing official (who is general officer equivalent) and to Chief Master Sergeants, as well as the evidence she submitted.  She further states that she has been very careful not to launch a personal attack on SSGT 1., but he was overworked and just as stressed as the rest of the office.  She has submitted evidence to show that the situation was difficult and it is unfair that she paid the price for a situation that was beyond her control.  She requests the Board grant her application and put her in the position she would have gotten if she had received an accurate "5" rating (Exhibit F).

_________________________________________________________________

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 the contested report is not an accurate assessment of her performance during the period in question.  In this respect, we note the statement submitted from the indorser on the contested report that reveals that the rater believed that training was a central issue in regard to his assessment of the applicant's performance.  However, the training deficiency was attributable to the rater and should not have been a factor in the rater's assessment.  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 her records and she be provided supplemental promotion consideration.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD DETERMINES 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 Jun 97 through 1 Jun 98, be declared void and removed from her records.  

It is further directed that the applicant be provided supplemental consideration for promotion to the grade of technical sergeant for all appropriate cycles beginning with cycle 00E6.

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

_________________________________________________________________

The following members of the Board considered this application in Executive Session on 28 November 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 30 Jun 01, w/atchs.
	Exhibit B.	Applicant's Enlisted Performance Reports.
	Exhibit C.	Letter, AFPC/DPPPWB, dated 24 Sep 01.
	Exhibit D.	Letter, AFPC/DPPPEP, dated 1 Oct 01.
	Exhibit E.	Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 5 Oct 01.
	Exhibit F.	Applicant's Response, dated 17 Oct 01.