RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  02-02131
		INDEX CODE:  111.02
		COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) rendered for the periods ending 15 May 2000 and 15 May 2001 be removed from his records.
_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The reports were written based on personal feelings of dislike by his supervisors and their superiors rather than on his performance as an airman.  

In support of his request applicant submits a personal statement; a sequence of events, a copy of his application to the Evaluation Reports Appeal Board (ERAB); a statement from the supervisor for the EPR period ending 15 May 2001; statements of support from personnel assigned to Pope AFB, NC and copies of his EPRs for the periods ending 15 May 2000 and 15 May 2001.  

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The Military Personnel Database (MilPDS) indicates applicant’s Total Active Federal Military Service Date as 16 September 1998.  He has been progressively promoted to the grade of senior airman (E-4), effective and with a date of rank 16 September 2001.  The MilPDS reflects an Air Force Commendation Medal for the period ending 30 June 2002.   A similar appeal by the applicant was considered and denied by the ERAB.  The following is a resume of his EPR profile:

	PERIOD ENDING		PROMOTION RECOMMENDATION

    15 May 00				3 (Contested Report)
    15 May 01				3 (Contested Report)
    15 May 02				5

Pursuant to a Inspector General (IG) complaint filed by the applicant containing two allegations that his additional rater inappropriately influenced his rater to give him a lower rating on the EPRs for the periods closing 15 May 00 and 15 May 01 and one allegation that the additional rater declined to support an EPR appeal package and informed the applicant that he was not allowed to pursue the appeal any further, an investigation was conducted by an investigating officer (IO) appointed by the Command IG, during the period 22 April to 9 May 2002.  In a report signed on 21 May 2002, the IO concluded that all three of the applicant’s allegations were unsubstantiated.  Although the allegations were unsubstantiated, the 43 AW/IG recommended that the applicant consider appealing his EPRs for the period ending 15 May 2000 and 15 May 2001, since there was strong evidence to suggest the rater allowed himself to be influenced by his superior’s personal feeling toward the applicant.  In addition, the IO recommended that the chain of command consider stressing to unit members the EPR appeal process.  Many of the witnesses of this investigation were under the false understanding that the EPR appeal process must be routed through the chain of command for approval/disapproval.  In addition, the IO indicated raters should be reminded that they have the right to disagree with superiors on EPR bullets and ratings.  Raters should feel comfortable rating subordinates as they saw fit and not feel pressured by the rater’s rater or anyone else in the rating chain.  He stated raters should be reminded that it was their responsibility to fairly and objectively evaluate their airmen, regardless of personal like and dislikes.  The Wing Judge Advocate’s review on 20 May 2002, found the Report of Investigation to be legally sufficient; however, the Wing Judge Advocate had concerns with respect to the Recommendations by the IO.  The Wing Judge Advocate recommended that the only corrective action to be taken should be to advise the applicant to pursue the proper EPR appeals process in accordance with AFI 36-2401 and recommend to the chain of command to educate supervisors and unit members on the EPR appeal process.  

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPPEP recommends the application be denied.  They state that the applicant submitted an Inspector General (IG) complaint alleging the additional rater inappropriately influenced the rater to lower the overall rating.  The allegations were not substantiated.  However, the IG noted that while he was not coerced, the rater did allow his overall rating to be influenced by the additional rater.  The rater stated he intended to give the applicant an overall “4” rating, but discovered the additional rater intended to nonconcur and downgrade the overall rating to a “2.”  The evaluators agreed on a compromise and gave the applicant an overall “3” rating.  Therefore, DPPPEP believes the rater was not unduly influenced to lower his rating.  He decided to give the applicant an overall “3” rating to possibly prevent a “2” rating if the additional rater would have nonconcurred.  The AFPC/DPPPEP evaluation is at Exhibit C.

AFPC/DPPPWB states that the first time the contested reports would have been considered in the promotion process was cycle 02E5 to SSgt (promotion effective Sep 02 - Aug 03).  If the Board voids the reports as requested, providing he is otherwise eligible, the applicant will be entitled to supplemental promotion consideration for cycle 02E5.  The applicant will become a select for the 02E5 cycle.  The AFPC/DPPPWB evaluation is at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Applicant states that when he received his first “3” rating he tried to appeal it but his additional rater turned his appeal down.  He requested a different rater and was told by this rater that he would be fair in his rating of him.  He was told that “5” ratings were not given to airmen but if he kept up the good work he would receive a “4.”  However, he ended up with a “3” rating.  He is neither a troublemaker nor a person with a bad attitude.  He worked very hard to get in the Air Force.  He was Dorm Chief the full term in basic training and received Honor Flight recognition.  He received his red rope in technical school in less than a month.  When he arrived at Pope AFB, NC he was motivated to be the best that he could be.  However, the additional rater did everything he could to stop him from succeeding.  His ratings were written on personal feelings rather than facts.  After his additional rater was removed from his rating chain, his Air Force career has exploded.  He has won the Airman of the month for September 2001; Ceremonial Knights award for September 2001; Sharpness award for the month and Quarter, Leadership award for the quarter and year 2001.  He was assistant NCOIC of the Base Honor Guard and won Airman of the month for April 2002.  He requests that the Board look at the big picture and void the false reports from his record.  

The applicant’s letter, with attachments, 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 careful consideration of the applicant’s complete submission, to include the supporting statement provided by his rater for the period 16 May 2000 through 15 May 2001, who fully supports the applicant and considers him to be a hard worker and a person of strong character and resolve, it appears that doubt exists concerning the accuracy of this contested report.  This rater has unequivocally stated that the rating the applicant deserved during this rating period was a “4”; however, due to the strong opposition by the Section Chief for a lower rating coupled with his limited experience as a supervisor, he gave the applicant a rating of “3.”  We have no reason to doubt the veracity of the rater’s comments to the effect that he was precluded from exercising his independent judgment in assigning the applicant’s promotion recommendation rating and that it was his intention to rate the applicant as a “4.”  Despite the absence of a statement from the rater for the rating period 16 September 1998 through 15 May 2000, overwhelming evidence has been presented in the form of supporting statements from senior noncommissioned officers and the findings of a Inspector General Investigation that causes us to believe that this EPR may have also been based upon personal feelings rather than an objective evaluation of the applicant’s performance.  Therefore, we believe sufficient doubt has been created as to the accuracy and fairness of the contested reports to warrant removing them from the applicant’s record.  In addition, we believe the applicant’s corrected record should be reconsidered for promotion via the supplemental process to ensure he has not been the victim of a promotion injustice.

_________________________________________________________________

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 Reports, AF Forms 910, rendered for the periods 16 May 1998 through 15 May 2000 and 16 May 2000 through 15 May 2001 be declared void and removed from his records.

It is further recommended that he be provided supplemental consideration for promotion to the grade of staff sergeant for all appropriate cycles beginning with cycle 02E5.

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 AFBCMR Docket Number 02-02131 in Executive Session on 16 April 2003 under the provisions of AFI 36‑2603:

     Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 24 Jun 02, w/atchs.
     Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPEP, undated.
     Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPWB, dated 16 Aug 02.
     Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 23 Aug 02.
     Exhibit F.  Letter, Applicant, dated 29 Aug 02.
     Exhibit G.  Letter, Report of Investigation, 43 AW/IG
                 w/atchs, dated 20 May 02 (withdrawn).

AFBCMR 02-02131

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 XXXXXXXXXXXXX, be corrected to show that the Enlisted Performance Reports, AF Forms 910, rendered for the periods 16 September 1998 through 15 May 2000 and 16 May 2000 through 15 May 2001 be, and hereby are, declared void and removed from his records.

	It is further directed that he be provided supplemental consideration for promotion to the grade of staff sergeant for all appropriate cycles beginning with cycle 02E5.

	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.