RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2003-01201
		INDEX NUMBER:  111.00
	XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX	COUNSEL:  None

	XXX-XX-XXXX	HEARING DESIRED:  Yes

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

The Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) rendered on him for the period 1 Jul 01 through 30 Jun 02 be substituted with a revised report.

He be granted supplemental promotion consideration to chief master sergeant (CMSgt) beginning with the 02E9 CMSgt promotion cycle.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The senior rater (SR) endorsement on the contested report does not provide an honest, fair, or accurate description and characterization of his performance, achievements, and promotion potential.  The endorsement also contains no quantification, stratification, or promotion statement that he believes he earned as the Command’s Senior Noncommissioned Officer (SNCO) of the Year and 12 Outstanding Airmen of the Year for 2001/02.

His hard work, performance, leadership, and promotion potential are not limited to the period of the contested report.  He provides a list of other awards and recognitions he has received.

He provides 10 attachments that contain sound documentation that the endorsement he received on the contested EPR is questionable, and not commensurate with the outstanding performance, leadership, and promotion potential he demonstrated during the reporting period.  Included is a statement from his former commander/rater verifying that he prepared the indorsements that were not used.

His commander provided two honest, just, and accurate EPRs with suggested SR endorsements that reflected his performance during the reporting period.  However, the Command Chief Master Sergeant (CCM) advised he and his commander that she would not support the recommended SR endorsements and gave them several reasons why.  However, the CCM advised that she would support a strong stratification and promotion statement, which he did not receive.

Other senior NCOs and CCMs have advised him that his senior rater should not have considered the reasons she used for not supporting his SR endorsement as the #1 senior master sergeant in the command.  He believes his CCM acted as the Air Force promotion board and allowed her ten-year review of his record to determine and/or influence his endorsement for the referenced reporting period.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant entered active duty in the Air Force on 22 Aug 80.  He was promoted to the grade of senior master sergeant on 1 Mar 01.  A resume of the applicant’s ten most recent EPRs indicates overall ratings of “5.”

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPPE recommends denial of the applicant’s request.  The applicant has requested the AFBCMR violate Air Force policy by inserting comments into his EPR that the senior rater does not support.  According to AFI 36-2406, senior raters may endorse EPRs in the following situations:  to differentiate between individuals with similar performance records since both ratings and endorsement levels have an impact on those who use the grade requirements.  The applicant’s rater acknowledges in his 10 Nov 02 memorandum, “there is no obligation for the additional rater to use the draft comments in whole or in part.”  They note that in this case the additional rater was also the senior rater.

The complete evaluation is at Exhibit C.

AFPC/DPPPWB defers to the recommendation of AFPC/DPPPE.  However, they note that an individual will not normally be granted supplemental promotion consideration if the error or omission appeared on his/her Data Verification Record (DVR) or in the Unit Personnel Record Group (UPRG) and the individual did not take appropriate corrective or follow-up action before the original board convened.  The applicant did not file an appeal through the Evaluation Reports Appeal Board (ERAB) until 4 Feb 03, after the board convened for the 02E9 cycle (15 Oct 02).

The complete evaluation is at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant responded to the Air Force evaluations by reiterating the reasons he believes the SR endorsement on his contested report does not provide an honest, fair, or accurate description and characterization of his performance, achievements, and promotion potential during the respective reporting period.  He indicates that the evaluation done by AFPC/DPPPWB does not speak to the foundation of his appeal.  The procedures used by the senior rater to evaluate his EPR for senior rater endorsement involved the consideration of inappropriate information in accordance with AFI 36-2406.    He also feels that both evaluations fail to address the basic question of integrity and asks the rhetorical question of what does it take to be the #1 SMSgt when he had been selected the Command’s SNCO of the Year for the respective reporting period.

The applicant points out that each of his SNCO EPRs since 9 Dec 97 have always contained a senior rater endorsement, which contained stratification, quantification, and/or promotion statement.  In most cases, he received both.  The applicant points out that the SR on his contested report signed strong stratification statements on previous reports and was also the one who signed the letters and certificates of recognition he has received.  His SNCO EPRs prove that command award winners are stratified and/or given promotion statements in their senior rater’s endorsement.

The applicant states that a senior rater endorsement without a stratification and/or promotion statement, especially the most recent EPR, sends a clear signal to the board that is viewed negatively.  Having an inconsistent senior rater endorsement history, as caused by his contested EPR is viewed negatively, especially since he has consistently received stratification and/or promotion statements since 1997.  In the year that he was recognized as the #1 SNCO in the command, he, inexplicably, received an endorsement that does not contain a stratification and/or promotion recommendation consistent with his performance and achievements.

The applicant questions whether the command chief master sergeant fulfilled her role of providing the senior rater with honest, accurate, and factual information to assist him in reaching an informed and just decision concerning the performance and achievement of those receiving a senior rater indorsement.  The applicant indicates that the CCM’s opinion or judgment that a “4” EPR from 10 years earlier should preclude him from getting a stratification (#1 SMSgt/SNCO) or promotion statement, especially when earned, is clearly an injustice.  The applicant provides some discussion on how such a view would effectively preclude any person who received less than perfect ratings early in their career from ever recovering or overcoming the rating.  

It is inappropriate to consider duty history or performance outside the reporting period.  The senior rater endorsement is for that specific reporting period and/or promotion cycle.  Promotion eligible SMSgt EPRs are racked and stacked for senior rater endorsement each and every year.  The applicant believes that, clearly, during the closeout of his EPR and subsequent promotion cycle, he was selected #1 SNCO in the command.

The applicant takes issue with AFPC/DPPPE’s assertion that he is seeking to have the AFBCMR “put words into the additional/senior rater’s mouth” by inserting comments he does not support.  The applicant emphasizes that the intent of his appeal has always been to correct an injustice and to put the honest, just, and accurate information that he deserves in his EPR.

The applicant’s complete submission, 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.  Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of error or injustice.  We took notice of the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of the case; however, we agree with the opinions and recommendations of the Air Force offices of primary responsibility and adopt their rationale as the primary basis for our conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice.  Additionally, the Board notes that the applicant does not provide any evidence showing support from his rating chain to revise his EPR.  He also does not provide any evidence that he sought an explanation from the command chief master sergeant or senior rater for the content of his indorsement.  Although the applicant’s rater indicates that he prepared two draft indorsements for the senior rater’s consideration, he also does not indicate any efforts on his part to find out why neither was used.  The applicant has not provided sufficient evidence to show that the senior rater’s decision to use a different indorsement constituted an error or injustice.  Therefore in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no compelling basis to recommend granting the relief sought in this application.

4.  The applicant's case is adequately documented and it has not been shown that a personal appearance with or without counsel will materially add to our understanding of the issues involved.  Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorably considered.

_________________________________________________________________
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 Docket Number BC-2003-01201 in Executive Session on 6 October 2003, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 27 Mar 03, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPPPE, dated 3 Jun 03.
    Exhibit D.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPPPWB, dated 20 Jun 03.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 3 Jul 03.
    Exhibit F.  Memorandum, Applicant, dated 17 Jul 03.