RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  02-01803
		INDEX CODE:  111.05

		COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED:  NO

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

The Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) rendered for the period 31 July 1999 to 30 March 2000, be declared void.

By amendment the applicant requests that the EPR rendered for the period 31 July 1999 to 30 March 2000, be upgraded from a rating of “3” to a “4”.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The decision by the indorser of the contested report to non-concur was based on a false accusation and a commander directed investigation, which proved inconclusive and was made after the closeout date of the contested report.  The decision was also changed by using ‘white out’ after the concur block was marked in Section IV, Promotion Recommendation, of the report.  There were no comments made as to why a non-concur was marked and there were conflicts with the rater’s rating and comments made.

In support of his appeal, the applicant provided a personal statement, EPR closing 30 March 2000 and other documentation.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant is currently serving in the Regular Air Force in the grade of technical sergeant.

The applicant appealed the contested report under the provisions of AFI 36-2401 and the appeal was considered and denied by the Evaluation Reports Appeal Board (ERAB); however, the ERAB changed Section VI, Line 6 to ensure clarity of why the indorser non-concurred with the report.

EPR profile since 1996 reflects the following:

	PERIOD ENDING	EVALUATION OF POTENTIAL

		23 Oct 96		5
		30 Jul 97		5
		30 Jul 98		5
		30 Jul 99		5
	*  30 Mar 00		3
		30 Mar 01		4
		30 Mar 02		5

* Contested report

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPPEP recommended denial.  They indicated that the applicant contends the decision to non-concur was based on false accusations, which were proven inconclusive by an investigation after the closeout date.  The applicant states a commander directed investigation was ongoing when the report closed out and the additional rater based his assessment on the incomplete findings.  However, only the evaluators know what influenced their assessments.  During the ERAB’s review of the appeal, they determined it was not clear in the indorser’s comments why he nonconcurred with the promotion recommendation of the rater.  As such, the ERAB contacted the indorser to determine his reason for nonconcurring.  The indorser confirmed he agreed with the markings in Section III, but stated he did not believe the member was “Ready” for promotion.  As such, he gave permission to the ERAB to change his last bullet to make it clearer.  Additionally, had the indorser or commander chosen to include the results of the investigation or the LOR/UIF entry, a 59-day extension to the closeout could have been requested.  Since the extension was not requested, it can be assumed they chose not to consider the investigation or the allegations when assessing performance.

The applicant contends improper procedures were followed when “white out” was used to change the additional rater’s concur markings to nonconcur and no comments as to why a “nonconcur” was marked.  However, the ERAB also addressed this issue by stating, “Lastly, a report is a working copy until it is filed in a member’s record.  Therefore, evaluators may change a report as often as necessary to ensure the final product is an accurate assessment of performance."  Additionally, it was pointed out to the applicant that AFI 36-2403, paragraph 4.2.4, authorizes the use of correction fluid to “change minor errors.”

The applicant provided character references from two of his peers as evidence of his dedication and outstanding performance.  However, while commendable, they do not override the assessments made by individuals who were better positioned to observe the ratee’s entire duty performance.  Additionally, while the character references imply a personality conflict existed between the applicant and the additional rater, they do not cite specific examples of this conflict or show how the conflict prevented the additional rater from preparing a fair and accurate assessment.  The letters actually seem to indicate that the applicant had known problems during the reporting period (hereby substantiating the rating).  The first letter states the applicant’s “work habits were questioned by ...” the indorser.  The second character reference further states the applicant had “…personal differences with others in the work center.”  While authors are entitled to their own opinions, it is the rating chain who was tasked to assess the “work habits” and “personal differences” of the applicant and render a fair/accurate report based on their assessment.

The changes directed by the ERAB resolved any administrative errors found on the report.  The ERAB further recommended that the applicant contact the Inspector General or Military Equal Opportunity to report any actions he feels were biased or unfair.  After an official investigation and if the allegations are substantiated, the applicant could then reapply to the ERAB to void the report.  However, without a summary of investigation, the allegation that the rater was biased and used an incident that occurred outside the reporting period is unfounded.

The allegation that the rater was biased and used inappropriate information to render his assessment is unsubstantiated by the character references of the applicant’s peers.  Only the evaluators can state what influenced their assessment.

The evaluation is at Exhibit C.

AFPC/DPPPWB deferred their recommendation to HQ AFPC/DPPPEP.  They indicated that the first time the report was considered in the promotion process was cycle 02E7 to master sergeant (promotions effective August 2002 - July 2003).  Should the AFBCMR void this report as requested, providing he is otherwise eligible, the applicant will be entitled to supplemental consideration for this cycle.  He would not become a select for the 02E7 cycle as his total score would increase to 317.03, below the 332.59 required for selection in his Air Force Specialty Code (AFSC).

The evaluation is at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant reviewed the evaluations and provided a response, which 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.  After reviewing the supporting documentation submitted by the applicant, we believe that some doubt exists as to whether the indorser was biased in his assessment of the applicant’s performance due to a possible personality conflict between him and the applicant.  In our opinion, this possible conflict may have adversely influenced the evaluator’s objectivity in assessing the applicant’s performance.  In this respect, we note statements submitted from two of the applicant’s peers that indicate that there was an apparent conflict between the applicant and the indorser of the contested report.  We also note that the ERAB denied the applicant’s appeal to void the contested EPR; however, the ERAB agreed with the applicant that the indorser of the report should have provided a reason for his nonconcurrence with the rater’s promotion assessment.  The indorser was contacted and he confirmed that although he agreed with the markings in Section III, he did not believe the member was “Ready” for promotion.  He requested the ERAB change the last line of Section VI of the report to make it read clearer.  We note, however, the indorser didn’t indicate why he believed the applicant was not ready for promotion.  While we chose not to speculate as to the indorser’s reasons, the Board believes that personalities possibly played a part in the ratings on the contested report which may have contributed to the indorser not being able to render an accurate assessment of the applicant’s performance.  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 his records.

4.	We note the applicant’s amended request to upgrade the indorser’s overall rating from a “3” to a “4.”  However, the Board found that the applicant has provided no documentation from his rating chain in support of this request.  Therefore, we find no compelling basis to recommend granting the applicant’s amended request.

_________________________________________________________________

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 31 July 1999 through 30 March 2000, be declared void and removed from his records.

_________________________________________________________________

The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket Number 02-01803 in Executive Session on 25 September 2002, 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 22 May 2002, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPEP, undated.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPWB, dated 17 July 2002.
   Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 2 August 2002.
   Exhibit F.  Letter, Applicant, dated 12 August 2002.

AFBCMR 02-01803

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 31 July 1999 through 30 March 2000, be, and hereby is, declared void and removed from his records.

		
		Director
		Air Force Review Boards Agency