RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  01-02367
		INDEX CODE:  111.00

		COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED:  YES

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

The Enlisted Performance Report (EPR), rendered for the period 23 September 1997 through 20 August 1998, be removed from his records and he be provided supplemental promotion consideration to the grade of senior master sergeant (E-8) for the 99E8 promotion cycle.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

There are several problems with the report.  The report should have closed out on 1 July 1998, the date his rating official resigned his position as Chief, Faculty Development Branch.  He was his reporting official during the previous nine months and had completed the report prior to his resignation and had forwarded it to the squadron commander.  Rather than closing out the report, the commander removed the rater’s name from the reporting official block, assumed the duties of his reporting official, and submitted the report as if he had been his (applicant’s) supervisor for the previous 332 days.  He was aware of his pending PCS and knew he would serve as his rater for less than 60 days.  The AFI mandates a period of supervision of no less than 120 days before an EPR can be accomplished prior to a PCS.  The previous rater completed his feedback worksheet during the mid-term session on 16 June 1998.  This is the feedback session the subsequent rater referred to as his initial feedback session in Block V on the EPR in question.  He did not provide the feedback yet he listed it in the report.  To establish a timeline for supervision, consider the date of the feedback, 16 June 1998, and the date on his paid travel voucher, 14 August 1998.  The previous rater actually left his post and the subsequent rater assumed responsibilities as his rater on 1 July 1998.  These documents indicate the maximum number of days he could have been supervised by the subsequent rater.  Even though supervision was less than 60 days, there is no statement in Section V that explains what happened to the previous rater.  

The report was submitted without a mark in the promotion eligible block indicating his eligibility.  When the promotion board reviewed the report in February 1999, this mistake was uncorrected although he had requested a correction from the commander.  At some point between May 1999 and December 2000, someone marked the promotion block on the report.

The actual performance feedback date in Section V of the contested report indicates the subsequent rater performed an initial feedback on 16 June 1998.  The feedback session was conducted on that date but it was between the previous rater and him.  The new rater made no effort to provide a feedback session although the AFI directs one when there is a change of raters.  The reason listed for the report is Change of Rating Official (CRO).  Their only meeting took place just days before his PCS when the rater congratulated him on his performance.  He showed him a copy of the final draft of the EPR.  All blocks were filled, including the senior rater’s comments.  

In the Fall of 1998, he discovered the senior rater’s comments had been removed; the EPR was closed out at the senior rater’s deputy level; and the promotion eligible block was left unmarked.  The rater told him that the wing had a new policy requiring the completion of the SNCO Academy correspondence course before they would allow the wing commander’s signature.  Since he had left Lackland AFB and no one conveyed the reasons why he had not finished the course prior to the PCS, the report was changed and closed out at the senior rater’s deputy level.  They discussed the reasons the course had not been completed and the rater said he would send the report back to the wing with justification to have the report corrected.  The corrections were never made and the original report was placed in his record prior to the board in February 1999.  He has since learned that the rater is unwilling to support a correction and he realized that the rater had not discussed the issue of correcting the EPR with the group or wing commander prior to his PCS.  The rater completely changed his position and acted as if this new position had been his policy from the beginning.  He cites two incidents that occurred just prior to his PCS, which he believes have bearing on the rater’s actions.  One involved the rater allowing a student to self-eliminate from the Military Training Instructors School (MTIS) against his recommendation and the other concerned the selection of a new commandant for the MTI school.

The EPR has damaged his promotion opportunity without an explanation of the circumstances.  He asks the Board to review his accomplishments and judge their magnitude against the level of support afforded the report. 

In support, the applicant provided a copy of his appeal package submitted to the Evaluation Reports Appeal Board (ERAB), copies of his 16 June 1998 Performance Feedback Worksheet (PFW), copies of the contested report, and a copy of his travel voucher, dated 31 August 1998.

The applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant is currently serving on active duty in the grade of master sergeant (E-7), with a Date of Rank (DOR) of 1 June 1995.  His Total Active Federal Military Service Date (TAFMSD) is 23 July 1981.

The applicant’s EPR profile for the last ten reporting periods follows:

	      PERIOD ENDING			OVERALL EVALUATION

			12 Jun 92							5
			 7 Feb 93							5
			 7 Feb 94							5
			 7 Feb 95							5
			 7 Feb 96							5
			22 Sep 96							5
			22 Sep 97							5
		   *	20 Aug 98							5
			30 Sep 99							5
			30 Sep 00							5

*  Contested Report

The applicant appealed the contested report under the provisions of AFI 36-2401, Correcting Officer and Enlisted Evaluation Reports.  The Evaluation Reports Appeal Board (ERAB) denied the application in September 2000.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS:

HQ AFPC/DPPPWB recommended denial.  They stated that the first promotion cycle the EPR was considered in the promotion process was cycle 99E8 (promotions effective 1 April 1999 - 1 March 2000).  They do not believe that the possibility that the report was not marked that he was TIG eligible was significant when the 99E8 Evaluation Board considered him for promotion to senior master sergeant (E-8).  He has a DOR to E-7 of 1 June 1995.  He had been considered for both the 97E8 and 98E8 cycles.  His three previous EPRs closing 7 February 1996, 22 September 1996, and 22 September 1997, indicate he was TIG eligible for E-8.  Even if the EPR was not marked that he was TIG eligible, the Evaluation Board was well aware of this fact when the EPR was reviewed.  In their view, this possible omission had absolutely no impact on his board score.  However, if the Board recommends removing the report, the applicant will be entitled to supplemental promotion consideration beginning with the 99E8 cycle, provided he is recommended by the commander and is otherwise eligible. 

A complete copy of the evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit C.

HQ AFPC/DPPPE recommended denial, stating that it is inappropriate to void a report due to a minor administrative correction.  Section IX, Time-in-Grade Eligible, is marked on the report closing 20 August 1998, which is filed in his Senior NCO (SNCO) folder.  In the opinion of AFPC/DPPPE, the allegation that a personality conflict prevented the rater from writing a fair and accurate assessment and ensuring the report was indorsed at the appropriate level is not substantiated.  

Regarding senior rater endorsement, it was the wing commander’s policy that he only gave his endorsement when members complete SNCO Academy by correspondence.  The applicant, despite his previous achievements, did not meet this standard.  The wing commander indicated he would be willing to give the applicant a senior rater endorsement if there was rating chain support.  The rater, who was also the applicant’s squadron commander, stated he would not support the change.  Therefore, regardless of who should have written the report, senior rater endorsement would not have been given.  AFPC/DPPPE concluded that the applicant did not provide convincing evidence the report was written by anyone other than the designated rater or that the rater was biased due to a personality conflict.  

A complete copy of the evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant reiterated his contention that the authorized rater of the report accomplished the EPR with senior rater endorsement; while the individual who rated him was unauthorized to rate him by the AFI, but assumed the position of his rater and altered the report so that it did not reflect the authorized rater’s intent.  His immediate supervisor during the rating period assumed the position of Chief of Faculty Development in the Fall of 1998.  He continued as his rater until the beginning of July 1999, when he resigned.  Prior to his resignation, he gave the squadron commander/rater’s rater a copy of the EPR he had written, including the senior endorser’s comments.  

The squadron commander/rater’s rater decided to become his rating official upon the resignation of the Chief of Faculty Development.  He served as his rater for less than 60 days.  He submitted the EPR as if he had been his rater for 332 days.  The initial feedback session on 16 June 1998, was conducted by the previous rater.  The EPR indicates the rater did not have time to perform a mid-term feedback session.  If he was his supervisor for 332 days, he would have had ample time to conduct the session.

The very thing he is contesting, that the authorized rater was inappropriately removed from the rating chain, is serving as the justification for not considering his input in the appeal.

While the omission of the check mark indicating his eligibility for promotion may not, in and or itself, warrant voiding the report, considering the other inaccuracies, it speaks to the validity of the whole EPR as an accurate, truthful reflection of his performance and promotion status.

The applicant’s complete response is at 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 warranting corrective action.  After careful consideration of the evidence provided, it appears that the applicant suffered an injustice because the rater did not have the 60 days of supervision required to render a change of rating official (CRO) evaluation report.  In this regard, documentation provided by the applicant shows that his performance feedback was accomplished by the previous rater on 16 June 1998; and the applicant PCSed to a new duty station on 14 August 1998.  Therefore, the rater could only have supervised the applicant for approximately 58 days.  In view of the foregoing, we believe the contested report should be declared void and removed from his records.  In addition, we recommend that his corrected record be considered for promotion to the grade of senior master sergeant for all cycles beginning with the 99E8 promotion cycle.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT:

The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating to APPLICANT, be corrected to show that the AF Form 911, Senior Enlisted Performance Report (MSgt thru CMSgt), rendered for the period 23 September 1997 through 20 August 1998, be declared void and removed from his record.

It is further recommended that he be provided supplemental consideration for promotion to the grade of senior master sergeant (E-8) for all appropriate cycles beginning with cycle 99E8.

If selected for promotion to the grade of senior master sergeant by supplemental consideration, he be provided any additional supplemental consideration required as a result of that selection, if applicable.

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 qualifications 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 on the date of rank established by the supplemental promotion and that he 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 13 November 2001, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

Vice Chair
Member
Member

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

     Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 14 Aug 2001, w/atchs.
     Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
     Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPWB, dated 30 Aug 2001, w/atchs.
     Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPE, dated 18 Sep 2001, w/atchs.
     Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 28 Sep 2001.
     Exhibit F.  Letter, Applicant, dated 24 Oct 2001.

                                   

AFBCMR 01-02367

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 AF Form 911, Senior Enlisted Performance Report (MSgt thru CMSgt), rendered for the period 23 September 1997 through 20 August 1998, be, and hereby is, declared void and removed from his record.

It is further directed that he be provided supplemental consideration for promotion to the grade of senior master sergeant (E-8) for all appropriate cycles beginning with cycle 99E8.

	If selected for promotion to the grade of senior master sergeant by supplemental consideration, he be provided any additional supplemental consideration required as a result of that selection, if applicable.

	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 qualifications 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 on the date of rank established by the supplemental promotion and that he is entitled to all pay, allowances, and benefits of such grade as of that date.