RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2004-02657
		INDEX NUMBER: 111.02

	XXXXXXX	COUNSEL:  NONE

	XXXXXXX	HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

The Enlisted Performance Report (EPR), rendered for the period 3 March 2001 through 2 March 2002, be removed from his records.

_________________________________________________________________

THE APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The rater was coerced into marking less than he intended and no performance feedback contributed to the coercive action.

In support of the appeal, applicant submits his personal statement and a copy of his package to the Evaluation Report Appeals Board (ERAB), which includes a statement from the rater of the contested report.

The rater of the contested report states, in part, that he discussed the report with the final evaluator and was told that if he stood by his fire-walled markings on the front of the report and overall evaluation of five, he [the final evaluator] would non-concur and downgrade the overall rating to a four.  As a result, he [the rater] marked the applicant down in three areas on the front of the report, but still rated him an overall five.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant is currently serving on active duty in the grade of master sergeant.

The applicant’s request to have the contested EPR removed from his records under AFI 36-2401 was denied by the ERAB.

Applicant’s performance profile since 1995, follows:

             PERIOD ENDING               OVERALL RATING

               12 Jul 95                       5
               26 Dec 95                       5
                1 Jun 96                       5
                2 Apr 97                       5
                2 Mar 98                       5
                2 Mar 99                       5
 	              2 Mar 00                       5
                2 Mar 01                       5
              * 2 Mar 02                       5
                2 Mar 03                       5
                4 Mar 04                       5

* Contested EPR (Marked down in Leadership, Managerial Skills & Judgment) & top report reviewed during cycle 03E8.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS

AFPC/DPPPE recommends the application be denied and states, in part, that applicant’s contention the rater was pressured to change his assessment has not been adequately proven.  There is no proof of coercion.  The rater and additional rater worked together to come to an agreement on the report.  The fact the rater may change his mind some two years later does not mean he was coerced at that time.  It is not clear why the rater is now stating a formal performance feedback session was not conducted; however, on 11 December 2001, he signed an official EPR stating it was accomplished.  Regardless, this is a moot point since the lack of feedback, by itself, is not sufficient to challenge the accuracy or justness of a report.

AFPC/DPPPW states, in part, that should the Board remove the report, the applicant will be entitled to supplemental promotion consideration beginning with cycle 03E8.

The evaluations are at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS:

The conversation the commander and rater had regarding the overall rating of the report was not what the authors of AFI-36-2406 would classify as a discussion.  Further, without formal performance feedback it was impossible for him to correct whatever deficiencies in his performance the commander felt existed.  The AFPC/DPPPE evaluation implies that because he had tested for promotion twice since the contested report his request is simply an attempt to get a second chance for promotion.  However, he is not trying to “game” the system.  He is appealing because he feels an injustice has occurred.  His request is strongly justified since he has provided corroborative evidence from the rater that he was coerced and pressured by the commander to change the overall rating of the report.

Applicant’s complete response, with attachments, 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.  After a thorough review of the applicant's complete submission and the evidence of record, a majority of the Board finds insufficient evidence to demonstrate the contested report is an inaccurate assessment of applicant’s performance during the period in question.  The statement from the rater of the contested report is duly noted; however, a majority of the Board is not persuaded he was coerced and pressured by the commander to change the overall rating of the report, but rather worked together to come to an agreement on the report.  Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, a majority of the Board finds no compelling basis to recommend granting the relief sought in this application.

_________________________________________________________________

RECOMMENDATION OF THE BOARD:

The majority of the Board finds insufficient evidence of error or injustice and recommends the application be denied.

_________________________________________________________________

The following members of the Board considered Docket Number BC-2004-02657 in Executive Session on 7 December 2004, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

By majority vote, the Board recommended denial of the application.  Mr. XXXXXXXXX voted to correct the records but does not wish to submit a minority report.  The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 19 Aug 04, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPE, dated 13 Oct 04.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 22 Oct 04.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, Applicant, dated 17 Nov 04, w/atchs.

                                   

AFBCMR

	Your application to the Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records, AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2004-02657,  has been finalized.

	By a majority vote, the Board recommended that your application be denied as set forth in the attached Record of Proceedings.  However, after a careful review and consideration of all factors involved, the Director, Air Force Review Boards Agency accepted the minority opinion and determined the military records should be corrected as set forth in the attached copy of a Memorandum for the Chief of Staff, United States Air Force.  The office responsible for making the correction(s) will inform you when your records have been changed.

	After correction, the records will be reviewed to determine if you are entitled to any monetary benefits as a result of the correction of records.  This determination is made by the Defense Finance and Accounting Service (DFAS-DE), Denver, Colorado, and involves the assembly and careful checking of finance records.  It may also be necessary for the DFAS-DE to communicate directly with you to obtain additional information to ensure the proper settlement of your claim.   Because of the number and complexity of claims workload, you should expect some delay.  We assure you, however, that every effort will be made to conclude this matter at the earliest practical date.

							Sincerely

Attachments:
1.  Cy of Directive, w/Cy of Proceedings
2.  SAF/MRB Letter

cc:  DFAS-DE

MEMORANDUM FOR	THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
FROM:	SAF/MRB
SUBJECT:	XXXXXXX, XXXXXXX, BC-2004-02657
I have carefully considered the rationale of the Board majority; however, I agree with the minority member that applicant’s Enlisted Performance Report (EPR), rendered for the period 3 March 2001 through 2 March 2002, should be voided and he be provided supplemental consideration for promotion to the grade of senior master sergeant for all appropriate cycles beginning with cycle 03E8.
The applicant contends the rater was coerced into marking his performance less than he intended on the contested EPR.  I note his assertion is strongly supported by the rater of the report who indicates that he discussed the report with the final evaluator and was told that if he stood by his fire-walled markings on the front of the report and overall evaluation of five, he [the final evaluator] would non-concur and downgrade the overall rating to a four.  The rater further states that based on the discussion, he marked the applicant down in three areas on the front of the report, but still rated him an overall five.
The aforementioned statement from the rater leads me to believe the contested EPR may not have been an accurate depiction of the applicant’s performance at the time it was rendered.  Therefore, having no basis to question the integrity of this individual, I believe any doubt should be resolved in favor of the applicant.  Accordingly, I direct the EPR rendered for the period 3 March 2001 through 2 March 2002, be voided and the applicant’s corrected record be provided supplemental promotion consideration beginning with cycle 03E8.

AFBCMR BC-2004-02657

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 XXXXXXX, XXXXXXX, be corrected to show that the Senior Enlisted Performance Report (MSgt thru CMSgt), AF Form 911, rendered for the period 3 March 2001 through 2 March 2002, be, and hereby is, declared void and removed from his records.

	It is further directed that he be provided supplemental consideration for promotion to the grade of senior master sergeant (E-8) for all appropriate cycles beginning with cycle 03E8.

	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.