RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2007-02479
		INDEX CODE:  111.02

		COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED: NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

The rating on his Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) dated 4 August 2004, be changed to reflect a 5 rather than a 4.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He provided an EPR written for a subordinate of his.  Senior Master Sergeant (SMSgt) “M…” did not agree with the rating of his subordinate believing it was too high.  He contends SMSgt “M…” threatened him and made the comment that he would “…make (him) pay for a rating subordinate too high.”  He went to his supervisor with this information and was told by his supervisor that he would not be affected.  However, he contends SMSgt “M…” did make his supervisor change his rating from a “5” to a “4”.  He presented his concerns to the first sergeant and he took action.

In support of his appeal, the applicant has provided copies of the subject EPR and several AF IMT 1168’s, Statement of Suspect/Witness/Complainant, and a letter of support from a chief master sergeant (CMSgt/Chief).

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant is currently serving in the Regular Air Force in the grade of master sergeant (MSgt).  He received an EPR for the period 4 August 2003 through 3 August 2004 with a rating of “4”; the highest rating being a “5”.  He did not file an appeal of the EPR in accordance with Air Force Instruction (AFI) 36-2401, Correcting Officer and Enlisted Evaluation Reports.  Therefore his EPR was forwarded to the Evaluation Reports Appeals Board, (ERAB) where his request was denied as the ERAB was not convinced the report was either inaccurate or unjust.  

_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPPEP recommends denial.  DPPPEP contends an evaluation report is considered to represent the rating chain’s best judgment at the time it is rendered.  In worker-supervisor relationships, some disagreements are likely to occur since a worker must abide by a supervisor’s policies and decisions.  Personnel who do not perform at expected standards or require close supervision may believe that an evaluator is personally biased; however, the conflict generated by this personal attention is usually professional rather than personal.  From the evidence provided, the applicant did not prove that the additional rater was unfair or biased in his evaluation or that he coerced the rater into changing his rating.  

DPPPEP’s complete evaluation is at Exhibit C.

AFPC/DPSOE addresses the supplemental promotion consideration issue should the Board grant this request.  Should the Board change the overall rating on the report, providing he is otherwise eligible, the applicant would be entitled to supplemental consideration beginning with cycle 05E7.  However, it would serve no useful purpose to supplementally consider him as his total score would not increase sufficiently to meet the promotion cutoff score required for selection.  His total score was 303.49 and the score required for selection in his Air Force Specialty (AFS) was 333.68, a difference of 30.19 points.  Changing the contested evaluation from a “4” to a “5” would only increase his weighted score by 6.75 points.  As a matter of information, the applicant was selected for promotion to MSgt during cycle 06E7 with a pin on date of 1 October 2006.

DPSOE’s complete evaluation is at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 5 October 2007 for review and comment 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 not timely filed; however, it is in the interest of justice to excuse the failure to timely file.

3.  Sufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of error or injustice.  We disagree with AFPC/DPPPEP’s contention that the conflict generated between the applicant, his rater and his additional rater was professional rather than personal.  Personnel associated with the applicant and his additional rater provided more than enough compelling testimony for us to believe that the events indeed unfolded as testified to by the applicant and other sworn witnesses, including his supervisor (rater).  While DPPPEP contends no coercion took place, we disagree as it appears the entire process was fraught with it.  Further, the overall inference that the applicant was not negatively affected by receiving a 4 rather than a 5 on his EPR is at best misleading and at worst mistaken.  With the benefit of hindsight, it appears that a 4 on his EPR did not affect his attempt to be promoted to master sergeant.  Applying foresight however, indicates that a 4 would most likely negatively affect any future promotion consideration by senior NCO promotion selection boards.  Therefore, we recommend that the records 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 his Air Force Form 910, Enlisted Performance Report, dated 4 August 2003 through 3 August 2004, Block IV, Promotion Recommendation, be marked with an “X” under column 5, Immediate Promotion, for both the Rater and the Additional Rater’s recommendation, rather than the “X” in column 4, Ready, for both the Rater and the Additional Rater’s recommendation.

______________________________________________________________

The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2007-02479 in Executive Session on 3 January 2008, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

All members voted to correct the records, as recommended.  The following documentary evidence was considered pertaining to AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2007-02479:

    Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 31 July 2007, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPPPEP, dated 28 August 2007.
    Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/DPSOE, dated 10 September 2007.
    Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 5 October 2007.