RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBERS:  02-00858
					INDEX CODE   111.02  111.05
	 				COUNSEL:  None

					HEARING DESIRED: Yes

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

The Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) for the period closing 31 Jul 99 be voided from his records.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The EPR was given unjustly and did not coincide with the performance feedback he received from his supervisor. The Air Force system of dealing with these types of discrepancies does not give the ratee a fair opportunity to appeal. The system is designed to force the rater to admit that they made a mistake. In other words, the ratee is guilty until proven innocent. He believes the report was driven by the biased opinion of his unit commander and the supervisor did not go against her will for fear of personal retribution. Despite his attempts, both the supervisor (rater) and the commander (indorser) indicated they would not admit their wrongdoings by supporting his request.  He provides a supporting statement from his former military personnel flight (MPF) chief.

The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant is currently serving in the grade of master sergeant, with a date of rank (DOR) of 1 Aug 99.  During the period in question, he was the NCOIC, Base Information Management, assigned to a classified location. With the exception of the contested EPR, all of his performance reports from 1 Apr 91 through 19 Feb 01 reflect overall ratings of “5” and the performance factors are, for the most part, “firewalled.”  The contested EPR has an overall rating of “3” and he was marked down in 5 out 7 performance factors.

The EPR which followed the contested report and closed on 19 Feb 00 has an overall rating of “5” and different evaluators, but the commander who indicated her concurrence in Section X, Commander’s Review, was also the indorser on the contested report.

The applicant twice appealed the contested report under the provisions of AFR 31-11/AFI 36-2401. The Evaluation Reports Appeal Board (ERAB) returned the appeal without action on 9 Apr 01 and denied it on 10 Jan 02. The ERAB indicated that the applicant needed to provide supporting statements from his original rating chain or from individuals in the rating chain who were higher than the commander.

The contested EPR was considered in promotion cycle 02E8 (senior master sergeant).
 
_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

HQ AFPC/DPPPE asserts that a direct correlation between feedback sessions and the assessment on evaluation reports does not necessarily exist.  If after a positive feedback session an evaluator discovers serious problems, the problems must be recorded in the evaluation report even when it disagrees with the previous feedback. The statement from the retired chief master sergeant lists several incidents the applicant was involved in; however, he does not state if they were before or after the feedback was accomplished.  In support, the applicant could have provided statements from other individuals in the rating chain or an inspector general (IG) or equal opportunity summary of investigation. The retired chief was not in the applicant’s rating chain and may not have been informed of all the details of the situation. The applicant did not provide convincing evidence the commander was biased or that she violated the rater’s rating rights through coercion. Denial is recommended.

A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 17 May 22 for review and comment within 30 days.  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 timely filed.

3.	Sufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of error or injustice. After carefully considering the applicant’s submission and his performance history, a majority of the Board is persuaded that the 31 Jul 99 EPR should be voided.  We note the applicant did not provide rating chain support; however, the Board majority concedes the difficulty in obtaining an admission of bias from the very individual(s) who may have committed the biased act. We agree with the Air Force that problems which develop after a feedback session can and should be recorded on the performance report. However, based on the supporting statement from the former MPF chief and the superior ratings the applicant has received before and since, the majority of the Board believes the possibility exists that the contested EPR may be flawed. In this regard, the incidents the chief refers to in his statement did not establish that the applicant was guilty of wrongdoing and apparently the commander was unable to make a case against him. This seems further buttressed by the fact that the same commander who indorsed the contested report concurred in an overall “5” rating on the subsequent EPR about six months later. Therefore, in order to offset the possibility of an injustice, the Board majority concludes that any doubt should be resolved in this applicant’s favor by voiding the 31 Jul 99 EPR from his records and granting him 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 August 1998 through 31 July 1999, be declared void and removed from his records.   

It is further recommended that he be provided supplemental consideration for promotion to the grade of senior master sergeant for all appropriate cycles beginning with cycle 02E8.  

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 individual 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 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 6 August 2002 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

By a majority vote, the Board voted to correct the records as recommended. Mr. Russell voted to deny the appeal but does not wish to submit a Minority Report. The following documentary evidence relating to AFBCMR Docket Number 02-00858 was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 1 Mar 02, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPPE, dated 16 Apr 02.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 17 May 02

                                   

AFBCMR 02-00858

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 1 August 1998 through 31 July 1999, be, and hereby is, declared void and removed from his records.

		It is further recommended that he be provided supplemental consideration for promotion to the grade of senior master sergeant for all appropriate cycles beginning with cycle 02E8.

		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 individual 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 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.