RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  02-02405
		INDEX CODE:  

		COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED:  NO
   
_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

The Enlisted Performance Reports (EPRs) rendered for the periods    13 May 1998 through 12 May 1999 and 13 May 1999 through          4 December 1999 be declared void and removed from his records.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The 98-99 report was written during a time period when his father was terminally ill from cancer.  He had taken 2 weeks of leave in October, November, and again in December 1998, when his father finally passed away after a long struggle with cancer.  During these 3 months, he was still required to make his monthly quota of normally 4-5 new recruits each month.  However, due to his absence, he was only able to achieve one new accession versus a goal of 13.  This was also the year that the entire Air Force was struggling to make its annual goal.  It was hard enough to make quota on a monthly basis, but to miss 2 weeks out of the month made it almost impossible.  On the day he returned from leave following his father’s funeral, he had a 4-page letter of direction waiting for him at the office detailing what he must do daily to over-produce and make up the lost enlistments from when he was on leave.  Other flight chiefs in the squadron agreed with him that these expectations were not realistic and would be almost impossible to achieve.  The attached letter from SMSgt L--- C---, who was the squadron trainer, has stated the expectations levied on him were excessive.  He was working from 0800-2100 Monday through Friday and 0900-1600 on Saturday.  When he received his feedback after this EPR, he was given the justification for the ratings:  for not making quota, it was reduced to a 4 and, for not meeting the expectations, it was reduced again to an overall 3 rating.  There is no written feedback because due to geographic separation in recruiting, his feedback was conducted over the phone.  The fact that he finished the previous fiscal year (ending September 1998) at 103% in production is not mentioned in the EPR.  The 12 May 1999 EPR only says “currently sitting at 68% for this fiscal year.”  The fact that he started fiscal year 99 at .07% for the first 3 months of the year, and over the next 5 months he had recovered to 68% should be evidence that he was working hard to accomplish his recruiting mission.  He feels that the rater’s and endorser’s comments do not support the ratings given (numbers like 122% EAD, (Entered Active Duty) 400% production in ROTC, 92% in critical Cat I/III enlistments and only a 4% loss rate for the years in MEPS processing to name a few).  Unfortunately, when he left recruiting and PCS’d back to his primary AFSC, he misplaced the copies of the letters of direction.  He was able to obtain a different letter of direction given to him in August 1999 and a letter given to him only 19 days after being assigned his first monthly quota.  The letter from August 1999 has the names blacked out because he had faxed it them to another flight chief, MSgt R--- L--- who still had the copy and faxed it back to him.  The only offer of proof he has that this was directed at him is the office symbol of 364 RCS/BC and his name are on the top of the form from when he faxed it.  Compare that to the other document with his signature on it, you will see the BC office symbol there as well.   Due to the length of time since his departure from Recruiting Service and moving, he has not been able to locate more of the documents, which he received, that would support his claim of unrealistic goals.  The letters attached should provide an idea of the mentality of the leadership under which he worked.

In support of the appeal, applicant submits a personal statement, copies of the contested reports, a copy of the April Production (mandatory work hours and efforts), a copy of the Letter of Direction, dated 9 August 1999, a copy of a Memorandum for Record, dated 29 March 2002, and a statement from the squadron trainer.

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 master sergeant.

EPR profile since 1996 reflects the following:

      PERIOD ENDING                 EVALUATION OF POTENTIAL

         1 Jun 96				  5
        12 May 97				  5
        12 May 98				  5
       *12 May 99				  3
        *4 Dec 99				  4
         4 Dec 00				  5
         4 Dec 01				  5

      *Contested Reports

The applicant filed an appeal under the provisions of AFI 36-2401, Correcting Officer and Enlisted Evaluation Reports,        1 December 1997.  The Evaluation Reports Appeal Board (ERAB) denied his request to void the reports.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPP states that in order to void a report, there must be clear evidence that the original evaluation was unjust or wrong.  The applicant is not claiming that the evaluation of his performance based on his rater’s expectations is inaccurate.  He contends the expectations are unjust.  However, the applicant did not provide a summary of investigation from the Inspector General’s (IG) office or from the Military Equal Employment (MEO) office substantiating the evaluators were incapable of rendering a fair and accurate assessment.  Evidence suggests that the rater provided clear guidance, in the form of the Letter of Direction, to assist him in meeting expectations for production.

Furthermore, a review of the contested reports does not show any inconsistency between the ratings and comments.  The Rater and Additional Rater comments on both reports mention his struggles to meet expectations and are compatible with the overall “3” and “4” ratings assessed.

In summary, an evaluation report is considered to represent the rating chain’s best judgment at the time it is rendered.  Once a report is accepted for file, only strong evidence to the contrary warrants correction or removal from an individual’s record.  The burden of proof is on the applicant.  It is DPPP’s opinion that he has not substantiated the contested reports were not rendered in good faith by all evaluators based on knowledge available at the time.  Therefore, they recommend denial of applicant’s request.

A complete copy of the evaluation is attached at Exhibit C.

AFPC/DPPPWB states that a member will not normally be granted supplemental consideration if the error or omission appeared on his/her Date Verification Record (DVR) or in the Unit Personnel Record Group (UPRG) and the individual did not take the appropriate corrective or follow-up action before the original board convened.  The purpose of this policy is to reduce the number of “after the fact” changes that are initiated in an effort to get a second opportunity for promotion.  The applicant did not file an appeal through the ERAB until 14 May 2002, after the board convened for cycle 99E8 (1 February 1999) and 00E8   (14 February 2000).  The first cycle the 12 May 1999 EPR was used in the promotion process was cycle 99E8 to senior master sergeant (SMSgt) (promotions effective April 1999-March 2000).  The first cycle the 4 December 1999 report was used in the promotion process was cycle 00E8 to SMSgt (promotions effective April 2000 – March 2001).  Should the AFBCMR void the reports as requested, the applicant will be entitled to supplemental consideration beginning with cycle 99E8 to SMSgt.

A complete copy of their evaluation is attached at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

On 4 October 2002, copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant for review and response within 30 days.  As of this date, no response has been received by this office. 

_________________________________________________________________

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.  After reviewing the evidence of record, we are not persuaded that the applicant’s records are in error or that he has been the victim of an injustice.  His contentions are noted; however, in our opinion, the detailed comments provided by the appropriate Air Force offices adequately address those allegations.  Therefore, we agree with opinions and recommendations of the Air Force and adopt their rationale as the basis for the conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice.  In the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no compelling basis to recommend granting the relief sought in this application.

_________________________________________________________________

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 9 January 2003, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

The following documentary evidence was considered:

	Exhibit A.	DD Form 149, dated 3 Jul 02, w/atchs.
	Exhibit B.	Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
	Exhibit C.	Letter, AFPC/DPPP, dated 13 Sep 02.
	Exhibit D.	Letter, AFPC/DPPPWB, dated 16 Sep 02.
	Exhibit E.	Letter, AFBCMR, dated 4 Oct 02.