RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBERS:  BC-2003-00197
	              INDEX CODE   111.02  111.03  111.05
	 	COUNSEL:  None

	 	HEARING DESIRED:  No

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

The Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) closing 1 Aug 00 be declared void and removed from his records.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The rater told him he (the rater) intended to mark the EPR with a “4” but did not finalize the report before his assignment change. The applicant does not believe the ratings given fairly match the comments and claims some tension existed between him and the additional rater. He also indicates his attempts to obtain support from the rater and additional rater were unsuccessful. He provides three supporting statements from others as well as an email from the rater advising he would contact the additional rater about changing the rating of the contested EPR. The rater also indicated he would send the applicant the paperwork to start the process if a change were needed. 

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

During the period in question, the applicant was a staff sergeant assigned to the 25th Fighter Squadron at Osan AB, Korea, as a support section craftsman. He is currently serving in the grade of technical sergeant.

His most recent EPRs reflect the following:

	PERIOD ENDING		OVERALL EVALUATION

	 31 Mar 94				4
	 31 Mar 95				5
	 29 Jul 96				5
	 29 Jul 97				5
	 29 Jul 98				5
	  1 Jun 99				5
	* 1 Aug 00				3 
	 19 Mar 01				4
	 19 Mar 02				5

*Contested Report

HQ AFPC/DPPPWB advised the AFBCMR Staff via email that the applicant was selected by cycle 01E6 for technical sergeant with a date of rank (DOR) of 1 Sep 01.  Further, the report will not be used in the promotion process again until he is eligible for master sergeant (cycle 04E7).

The applicant has not filed an appeal under the provisions of AFI 36-2401.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

HQ AFPC/DPPPE notes there is no indication from the rater that his intention was to mark the promotion block with a “4” rating as the applicant alleges. Even if this were true, the additional rater would still nonconcur with the promotion rating and mark him down to a “3.” Thus, the final rating would remain a “3.” Further, the applicant has not established that there was additional rater bias as he insinuates. DPPPE finds the comments and rating consistent. Denial is recommended.

A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 14 Feb 03 for review and comment within 30 days.  As of this date, this office has received no response.

_________________________________________________________________

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 to warrant voiding the contested EPR.  The applicant has typically received EPRs with overall ratings of “5” and comments attesting to years of outstanding duty performance. While the comments and performance evaluations in the 1 Aug 00 report may be consistent with an overall rating of “3,” this EPR is, in our view, a carefully crafted instrument designed to harm the applicant.  First, we question why a rater would be so irresponsible as to leave his evaluation of a subordinate “unmarked” and therefore vulnerable to uncontested and possibly unauthorized changes. Second, while the lackluster comments would appear to justify the lower overall rating, why would the rater deliberately downplay a major achievement as “. . . totally refurbish[ed] eight assigned tool boxes” and make no mention that this accomplishment earned the applicant a Superior Performer Award in Oct 99 for superior performance? We grant that evaluators may select the highlights of a ratee’s performance; however, we find such an omission in this case decidedly suspect. Even if the applicant’s performance had been otherwise mediocre, we believe an objective evaluator still would have cited such a noteworthy award and not omitted or reduced it to insignificance with blasé remarks. The fact that the rater did so raises the possibility of bias. Further, while the applicant provides no rating chain statements, he does submit a letter from the master sergeant who supervised both the rater and the applicant from Oct 99 to Apr 00. This was a considerably longer period of observation than that of the additional rater, given that the applicant was on leave and doing paperwork for a humanitarian reassignment for most of the time the additional rater was in his rating chain. Contrary to the Air Force’s opinion, we find the master sergeant’s specific examples of the applicant’s excellent performance pertinent and persuasive. We believe it very possible that the additional rater’s appraisal may have been negatively influenced by insufficient observation, the rater’s questionable evaluation, the applicant’s efforts and related absence regarding a humanitarian reassignment, or all of the above. In any event, we conclude that the contested EPR is not an accurate assessment of the applicant’s performance for the rating period in question and, to preclude any possibility of an injustice, recommend it be removed from his records.  According to HQ AFPC/DPPPWB, the applicant was selected for technical sergeant by the 01E6 cycle. Since the report will be voided before he is eligible for promotion consideration to master sergeant by cycle 04E7, supplemental promotion consideration is not necessary.  Therefore, the applicant’s records should be corrected as indicated below.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT:

The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating to APPLICANT, be corrected to show that:

The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating to the APPLICANT, be corrected to show that the Enlisted Performance Report, AF Form 910, rendered for the period 2 June 1999 through 1 August 2000, be declared void and removed from his records.   
_________________________________________________________________

All members voted to correct the records, as recommended.  The following members of the Board considered this application in Executive Session on 15 May 2003 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

The following documentary evidence relating to AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2003-00197 was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 13 Jan 03, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPPE, dated 6 Feb 03.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 14 Feb 03.

                                   

AFBCMR BC-2003-00197

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 2 June 1999 through 1 August 2000, be, and hereby is, declared void and removed from his records.