RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  02-01667
		INDEX CODE:  111.02

		COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His Enlisted Performance Report (EPR), rendered for the period 2 Feb 97 through 1 Feb 98, be replaced with the reaccomplished EPR provided; and, that he be provided supplemental promotion consideration to the grade of senior master sergeant (E-8) for cycle 00E8.
_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The contested report does not accurately assess his performance.  His supervisor (SMSgt  ) was biased and unable to provide accurate information to the rater.  In addition, the contested report is inconsistent with previous reports and it was late to file.

In support of his request, the applicant submits a personal statement, the proposed EPR, a copy of the contested report, statements from his rating chain, and additional documents associated with the issues cited in his contentions.  The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant’s Total Active Federal Military Service Date (TAFMSD) is 7 Jun 84.  He is currently serving on active duty.  At the time the applicant submitted this application, he was serving in the grade of master sergeant.  He has subsequently been promoted to the grade of senior master sergeant, with an effective date and date of rank of 1 Feb 02.  The following is a resume of his EPR ratings subsequent to his promotion to that grade.

Applicant's EPR profile for the last 5 reporting periods follows:

		Period Ending	Evaluation

		 *  1 Feb 98	5 - Immediate Promotion (TSgt)
		    1 Feb 99	5 - (MSgt)
		    1 Feb 00	5
		   29 Sep 00	5
		    6 Jun 01	5

* Contested report

With the exception of the contested report, all EPRs since 1993 contain “firewall” ratings.

Similar appeals by the applicant, under Air Force Instruction (AFI) 36-2401, were considered by the Evaluation Report Appeal Board (ERAB).  On 18 Jun 01, the ERAB directed that the applicant’s 30 Mar 01 appeal be returned without action because it was incomplete.  On 8 Mar 02, the ERAB determined that the evidence submitted with the applicant’s 9 Jan 02 appeal did not warrant changing the report; therefore, his appeal was denied.
_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

HQ AFPC/DPPPEP recommends the application be denied.  DPPPEP stated that the applicant cites the supervisor changing his duty title as an example of biased behavior.  Since there is no instruction governing appropriate duty titles, they are usually left to the discretion of the rater.  A simple change in duty titles does not constitute “personal jealousy.”  As to the rater’s statement of support, DPPPEP stated that the rater did not cite specific examples of the conflict, the origin of the conflict or any adverse actions caused by the conflict.  DPPPEP indicated that the noteworthy accomplishments the applicant contends the supervisor failed to notify the rater of are actually documented on the report.  The contested report identifies the deployment and several accomplishments from the Letter of Evaluation (LOE) she received.  The “Pat on Back” award was not mentioned because the award is dated after the closeout of the report.  Therefore, the rater was informed of the significant accomplishments and based her assessment on her own observations prior to her deployment.  DPPPEP stated that sometimes an individual can stay in the same job and a change in supervisors will produce a change in performance standards, which, depending on how well the individual adapts, could cause a marked changed in the next report.  DPPPEP agrees that the contested report was late to file; however, the lateness does not invalidate the ratings or comments.  The rater stated she was TDY during the latter part of the reporting period; therefore, it is logical to assume the report was delayed due to the rater’s support of the TDY mission.  DPPPEP indicated that based on the character references provided, it appears there was a lot of turmoil in the squadron at that time.  However, those incidents are not germane to the contested report and the retrospective views of the rater, two and a half years after the closeout of the report, do not carry as much weight as assessments made when the facts and circumstances are fresh in the minds of the evaluators.  The HQ AFPC/DPPPEP evaluation is at Exhibit C.

HQ AFPC/DPPPWB indicated that the senior master sergeant (E-8) selection board for cycle 00E8 convened on 14 Feb 00.  DPPPWB stated that the first time the contested report was considered in the promotion process was Cycle 00E8 to senior master sergeant (E-8), promotions effective Apr 00 - Mar 01.  Should the Board correct and substitute the report as requested, the applicant will be entitled to supplemental promotion consideration commencing with Cycle 00E8.  They defer to the recommendation of HQ AFPC/DPPPEP.  The HQ AFPC/DPPPWB evaluation, with attachment, is at Exhibit D.
_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant reviewed the advisory opinions and indicated that both his rater and commander agree the report was an inaccurate assessment of his performance.  They realized that they made a mistake in judgments and both concurred and requested opportunities to change this EPR.  His accomplishments during the contested rating period do not logically compute to a performance report rated significantly lower than his peers.  His EPR was hampered by inaccurate information provided by the acting flight chief.  He willingly provided inaccurate information about his performance because of a personality conflict.  The acting flight chief changed his duty title six days before the closeout of the contested report.  He was a noncommissioned officer with a line number for senior noncommissioned officer who served in the capacity of superintendent sports and fitness; therefore, his title should not have been changed.  The applicant’s complete response, with attachment, 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 error or injustice.  After reviewing the evidence provided, specifically the statements by the rating chain of the contested report, we believe substantial doubt has been created concerning the fairness and accuracy of the contested report.  In this respect, we note that the rater stated that, since he was TDY during the rating period, he based his evaluation on the acting flight chief’s comments.  However, he subsequently observed both individuals and realized a personality conflict existed between the applicant and the acting flight chief.  He, therefore, believes the information he based his evaluation on was influenced by a personality conflict and is not an accurate reflection of the applicant’s performance during that rating period.  The indorser provided his support by stating that the contested report reflected inaccurate performance information that was influenced by personality conflicts and poor judgment on the part of the rater preparing the report.  Based on these statements and in the absence of a basis to question the integrity of these individuals, we recommend that any doubt should be resolved in favor of the applicant and conclude that the contested report should be replaced with the reaccomplished EPR provided and he be given supplemental promotion consideration to the grade of senior master sergeant commending with Cycle 00E8.
_________________________________________________________________

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 2 February 1997 through 1 February 1998, be declared void, removed from his records, and replaced with the reaccomplished EPR provided for the same period.

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 00E8.

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 12 September 2002, 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 in connection with AFBCMR Docket Number 02-01667.

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 25 Apr 02, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPPEP, dated 9 Jul 02.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPPWB, dated 12 Jul 02, w/atch.
   Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 26 Jul 02.
   Exhibit F.  Letter from Applicant, dated 15 Aug “01”, w/atch.

                                   
                                   Panel Chair

AFBCMR 02-01667

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 that the Enlisted Performance Report, AF Form 910, rendered for the period 2 February 1997 through 1 February 1998, be declared void, removed from his records, and replaced with the reaccomplished EPR provided for the same period.

	It is further directed that he be provided supplemental consideration for promotion to the grade of senior master sergeant for all appropriate cycles beginning with Cycle 00E8.

	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.

		
                                     	Director
                                     	Air Force Review Boards Agency

Attachment
Reaccomplished EPR