RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBERS:  02-02383
	INDEX CODE 111.02  111.05  131.00
	 	COUNSEL:  None

	  	HEARING DESIRED:  No
_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

The Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) closing 12 Mar 98, with an overall rating of “4,” be voided and replaced with the reaccomplished EPR having an overall rating of “5,” and he be afforded supplemental promotion consideration to the grade of technical sergeant beginning with cycle 01E6.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The report contains many errors, omissions and false statements. The rating is the unjust result of a personality conflict between himself and his supervisor that inhibited the development of a professional and unbiased relationship. The hostile environment created by the supervisor affected the entire office. The indorser signed a blank EPR shell or the EPR was altered after the fact and the indorser never received the final copy. As a result, the indorser changed the EPR to reflect nonconcurrence and the higher rating of “5.” He also has the commander’s signature concurring with the indorser’s decision to upgrade the report.

The indorser provides a supporting statement indicating, among other things, that his social security number is incorrect.  Also provided are statements from a lieutenant colonel who observed the rater’s actions towards the applicant, and from the rater’s supervisor. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.

Examiner’s Note: The reaccomplished EPR provided cannot be used as currently written. It does not include the rater’s signature or the indorser’s complete SSN. Further, the signature dates for the indorser and the commander reflect 2002. In order for the report to be included in cycle 01E6 supplemental promotion consideration, these dates would have to be changed to the 1998 timeframe. However, if the Board believes relief is warranted, it can direct that all appropriate corrections be made to the original EPR. 

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 24 Apr 91 and was ultimately promoted to the grade of staff sergeant with a date of rank of 1 Nov 98.  During the period in question, he was an operations resource management journeyman with the 24th Operations Support Squadron at Howard AFB, Panama.  

The overall ratings of his performance reports from the period closing 30 Jul 94 through 7 Sep 01 are: 4, 4, 4, 5, 4 (contested), 5, 5, and 5. 

The applicant was considered but not selected for promotion to the grade of technical sergeant in cycle 01E6.

According to HQ AFPC/DPPPEP, the applicant filed an appeal under the provisions of AFI 36-2401; however, it was denied.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

HQ AFPC/DPPPEP asserts the applicant has not provided firsthand evidence clearly showing how a possible conflict with his rater prevented the evaluator from preparing a fair and accurate report.  The indorser clearly states he was aware of “a personality conflict” between the applicant and the rater and even counseled the rater on at least two occasions. It would appear the indorser had all the information he needed in providing his own fair and accurate assessment.  It wasn’t clear why the indorser might sign a report with unmarked ratings for which: 1) he believed there to be a conflict between the rater and ratee, and 2) a report with which he intended to nonconcur. Personnel who do not perform at expected standards or who require close supervision may believe that an evaluator is personally biased; however, conflict generated by this attention is usually professional rather than personal. Denial is recommended.

A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit B.

HQ AFPC/DPPPWB also reviewed the appeal and advises that, should the Board upgrade the report as requested, the applicant would be entitled to supplemental promotion consideration beginning with cycle 01E6 and would become a selectee pending favorable data verification and the commander’s recommendation.

A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant asserts his office practiced signing blank copies as most of the Air Force. People do not like to incriminate themselves. He provided evidence that showed how the personality conflict prevented the evaluator from preparing a fair and accurate report. Office leadership wanted to remove the rater but higher authority would not allow this. It is unclear to him why the indorser signed the report with an unmarked rating, knowing there was a personality conflict.  However, he should not pay the price in his career for mistakes his leadership made at the time.

The applicant’s complete response is at Exhibit E.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

1.	The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by existing law or regulations.

2.	The application was timely filed. 

3.	Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of error or injustice to warrant voiding the EPR in question. We noted the statements submitted in support of this appeal. However, neither they nor the applicant have persuaded us that the rater was unable to render an objective evaluation for the contested performance period. If the indorser truly believed that the rater was so biased she would be unable to properly assess the applicant’s performance, we question why he would sign a blank EPR form in the first place and why, over four years later, he and the applicant now raise the issue of prejudice. Even if the rater’s management style was less than desirable and she and the applicant had difficulty working together, that does not inherently signify that her assessment of him was wrong. This is not the first or only performance report the applicant has received with an overall rating of “4.” Neither the unspecific supporting statements nor the applicant’s assertions have demonstrated how the contested EPR is unfair, harsh, inaccurate or a product of bias. In view of the above and absent persuasive evidence to the contrary, the applicant has failed to sustain his burden of having suffered either an error or an injustice. Therefore, we find no compelling basis to recommend granting the relief sought.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:

The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of material error or injustice; that the application was denied without a personal appearance; and 
that the application will only be reconsidered upon the submission of newly discovered relevant evidence not considered with this application.

_________________________________________________________________

The following members of the Board considered this application in Executive Session on 29 October 2002 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

The following documentary evidence relating to AFBCMR Docket Number 02-02383 was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 22 Jul 02, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPPEP, dated 19 Aug 02.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPPWB, dated 20 Aug 02.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 30 Aug 02.
   Exhibit E.  Letter, Applicant, dated 11 Sep 02.

                                   
                                   Panel Chair 

AFBCMR 02-02383

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 (EPR), AF Form 910, rendered for the period 13 March 1997 through 12 March 1998 was amended as follows:

	     a.  The indorser’s promotion recommendation in Section IV reflects “5” rather than “4.”

	     b.  The last word in Section V reflects “Responsibility” rather than “responsibility.”

	     c.  Section VI reflects “Nonconcur” rather than “Concur,” and the indorser’s social security number reflects “458-11-9593” rather than “530-74-3352.”

	It is further directed that he be provided supplemental consideration for promotion to the grade technical sergeant for all appropriate cycles beginning with 01E6 with the corrected EPR in his records.

	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.

				      
				      Director
				      Air Force Review Boards Agency

MEMORANDUM FOR	THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, AIR FORCE BOARD FOR 
			CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS (AFBCMR)

FROM:  SAF/MR

SUBJECT: AFBCMR Case of        , AFBCMR Docket No. 02-02383 

	I have carefully considered all the circumstances of this case and do not agree with the AFBCMR that the applicant’s request should be denied. 

	Having no basis to question the statements from the indorser, the rater’s supervisor, and a lieutenant colonel who unequivocally attest that the rater unfairly rated the applicant due to a personality conflict, I believe equity dictates that the EPR be upgraded and its minor errors amended as appropriate.  In this respect, the rater’s supervisor confirms the rater’s harsh treatment of the applicant and the lieutenant colonel advises that he witnessed the rater’s actions towards the applicant and, while he was not in the rating chain, verbally counseled the rater and ultimately removed her from her supervisory position partly because of her behavior towards the applicant.

	In view of the foregoing, any doubt in this case should be resolved in favor of the applicant.  The reaccomplished report provided by the applicant cannot be used as it does not have the rater’s signature or the indorser’s complete social security number. Further, the signature dates for the indorser and the commander reflect 2002, which would render it ineligible for promotion consideration in the 01E6 promotion cycle.  However, the rating of the original EPR can be upgraded and its minor errors corrected.  

	Accordingly, I direct the contested EPR be upgraded, corrected as indicated, and the applicant be afforded supplemental promotion consideration to the grade of technical sergeant for cycle 01E6. 

			
			Assistant Secretary 
			(Manpower and Reserve Affairs)