RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  02-01114
		INDEX CODE:  111.05
		COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED:  YES

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His Enlisted Performance Reports (EPRs) rendered for the periods 20 Apr 97 through 4 Jan 98 and 5 Jan 98 through 4 Jan 99, be declared void and removed from his records.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The EPRs do not accurately portray his actual performance and do not capture any of his accomplishments.  Instead they are a reflection of a personality conflict that existed between him and his supervisor.  In comparison, his EPRs rendered prior to and after these reports validate his performance factors as compared to his supervisor's standards.  When he arrived on station there was an immediate personality conflict between him and TSgt O---.  He noticed the problem prior to TSgt O--- being appointed as his supervisor and voiced his concerns to the flight chief.  In spite of his concerns, he was still appointed as his supervisor.  His initial feedback session centered on negative reinforcement and comments that he felt were inappropriate.  During the feedback session, his supervisor focused more on his personality traits rather than his job performance and even noted his mispronunciation of words and his slight stutter.  

TSgt O--- was removed as his supervisor in November 1997.  His new supervisor, 2Lt M---, provided him a feedback session that indicated his performance was well above standards.  In March 1998, 2Lt M--- requested bullets for his next EPR.  He was briefed that TSgt O--- would not be writing the EPR because of the tensions that existed between them.  However, his EPR was backdated to 4 Jan 98 and was written by TSgt O--- with an overall rating of "3."  He addressed the problems with his chain-of-command but received no help.  The following year he spent the majority of the time working in other areas, but he excelled in them all.  When his next report was written he received an overall rating of "4" and all areas were marked extremely low.  At no time did 2Lt M--- give him the impression that his work was substandard.  Applicant believes that his report written by 2Lt M--- was the result of a perceived improper relationship between him and TSgt O---.

In support of his request, applicant provided a personal statement, a synopsis of the events, and documentation associated with his Evaluation Reports Appeal Board (ERAB) appeal.  His complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Data extracted from the personnel data system reflects that the applicant contracted his initial enlistment in the Regular Air Force on 16 Aug 84.  He has been progressively promoted to the grade of technical sergeant, having assumed that grade effective and with a date of rank of 1 Aug 01.  

The following is a resume of the applicant's recent EPR profile.

		PERIOD ENDING		OVERALL EVALUATION

			21 Nov 01			5
			04 Jan 01			5
			04 Jan 00			5
			04 Jan 99*			4
			04 Jan 98*			3
			19 Apr 97			5
			19 Apr 96			5
			05 Nov 95			5

* - Contested reports
_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPPEP reviewed applicant’s request and recommends denial.  DPPPEP states that the ERAB denied his appeal because he did not provide evidence that shows a conflict prevented the raters from preparing a fair and accurate report.  Personnel who do not perform as expected 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.  He provided a draft copy of the EPR which he alleges was going to be his EPR before the rater was influenced by his previous rater to revise and weaken the report.  The draft EPR is unsigned and is not credible evidence to support his claim.  He also provided a copy of a feedback form that is not signed or dated.  Further, there is no substantiated evidence to point to his allegation that his speech impediment further exacerbated his rater’s dislike of him.  The DPPPEP evaluation is at Exhibit B.

AFPC/DPPPWB reviewed applicant’s request and states that provided he is otherwise eligible, if the 4 Jan 98 EPR were to be voided he would not become a selectee for the 99E6 promotion cycle.  However, he would become a selectee for the 00E6 promotion cycle.  Should the Board void the 4 Jan 99 EPR he would remain a nonselectee for the 00E6 promotion cycle.  Should both EPRs be voided, he would become a selectee for the 00E6 cycle.  He was selected for promotion to the grade of technical sergeant during the 01E6 cycle and was promoted on 1 Aug 01.  The DPPPWB evaluation is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on 10 May 02 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 warranting voidance of the EPR closing 4 January 1998 from his records.  In this respect, after thorough review of the evidence of record, we believe reasonable doubt has been established as to whether or not the performance report closing 4 January 1998, is a true and accurate assessment of his performance during the period in question.  Based on the evidence provided, in particular his previous and subsequent performance report history, it appears that a personality conflict may have existed between the applicant and his rater that hindered that individual's ability to objectively assess the applicant's performance.  In consideration of all the circumstances involved it is our opinion that the benefit of any doubt in this matter should be resolved in his favor.  Accordingly, we recommend that his records be corrected to the extent indicated below.

4.  However, in regard to the applicant's request to remove the performance report closing 4 January 1999, insufficient relevant has been presented to demonstrate the existence of error or injustice that would lead us to believe this EPR is erroneous or unjust.  The applicant has established that a possible conflict existed between himself and the rater on the report closing 4 January 1998.  However, we are not persuaded that this individual (rater) influenced the evaluation of his performance on the report closing 4 January 1999.  It appears that the report closing 4 January 1999 is an accurate assessment of his performance during the period in question.  Therefore, in the absence of persuasive evidence to the contrary, we find no compelling basis to recommend removal of this particular EPR.

5.  The applicant's case is adequately documented and it has not been shown that a personal appearance with or without counsel will materially add to our understanding of the issue(s) involved.  Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorably considered.

_________________________________________________________________

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 20 April 1997 through 4 January 1998, be declared void and removed from his records.

It is further recommended that he be provided supplemental consideration for promotion to the grade of technical sergeant for all appropriate cycles beginning with cycle 99E6.

If selected for promotion to technical sergeant by supplemental consideration, he be provided any additional supplemental consideration required as a result of that selection.

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 Docket Number 02-01114 in Executive Session on 27 Jun 02, 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 24 Mar 02, w/atchs.
     Exhibit B.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPEP, dated 3 May 02.
     Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPWB, dated 2 May 02.
     Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 10 May 02.

                                  

AFBCMR 02-01114

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 APPLICANT, be corrected to show that the Enlisted Performance Report, AF Form 910, rendered for the period 20 April 1997 through 4 January 1998, 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 beginning with cycle 99E6.

	If selected for promotion to technical sergeant by supplemental consideration, he be provided any additional supplemental consideration required as a result of that selection.

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.