RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2005-00313
		INDEX CODE:  111.05
		COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED:  NO

MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:  29 MAY 2006

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) rendered for the period 16 May 2003 through 30 September 2003 be removed from his record.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The cut-off date for the EPR was 30 September 2003; however, the report was not signed until February 2004.  Also, the concur/non-concur block in the reviewer’s comments was not marked.  His rating chain was given incorrect guidance.

In support of the application, the applicant submits a copy of his appeal to the Evaluation Reports Appeal Board (ERAB), including copies of the contested report, his Performance Feedback Worksheet and statements of support from his rating chain.  The applicant's complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant’s military personnel records were not provided.  Information extracted from the Military Personnel Data System indicates the applicant was relieved from active duty in the grade of master sergeant on 31 January 1999 and retired for length of service on 1 February 1999.  He was credited with approximately 20 years, 2 months and 24 days of active duty service.  Prior to his retirement, the applicant received three EPRs in the grade of master sergeant in which the Promotion Recommendations were “5” and the evaluations of his performance (front-side markings) were all “firewall” ratings.

The applicant reentered active duty on 16 May 2003 and was released from active duty on 15 May 2005, on which date, he reverted to retired status.  He is credited with 22 years, 2 months and 24 days for pay and 22 years and 1 day of total active duty service.  During this period of active duty service, the applicant received two EPRs.  The first was the contested report, closing 30 September 2003, with a Promotion Recommendation of “4” with markdowns in the performance factors of job knowledge and professional qualities.  The second was a report closing 30 September 2004, in which the Promotion Recommendation was “5” and the evaluations of his performance were all “firewall” ratings.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

HQ AFPC/DPPP recommends denial of the applicant’s request.  DPPP notes the application was timely.  DPPP states the applicant filed an appeal under the provisions of AFI 36-2401, Correcting Officer and Enlisted Reports.  Based on the support from the applicant’s evaluators, the Evaluation Reports Appeal Board (ERAB) requested the applicant provide a substitute report; however he chose not to provide one.

The rater states she began supervision in May 2003 and was notified in late November that a report was overdue.  She requested information from the squadron command section for non-completion of Senior Noncommissioned Officer Academy and was told the report would close out at the group based on the circumstances.  She was also told the applicant was not immediately promotable and could not get an overall “5” rating on the EPR and the commander would not concur with a “5” rating.  Based on the information provided to her, she changed the overall rating to a “4.”  

The regulation states “evaluators should discuss disagreements when preparing reports.  Prior evaluators are first given an opportunity to change the evaluation; however, they will not change their evaluation just to satisfy the evaluator who disagrees.”  DPPP explains the rater should have contacted the MPF for further clarification; but instead opted to change the rating.  DPPP states a report can only be signed on or after the close out date; therefore, the signature dates are not in error.  Although the applicant does not state the lateness of the report caused the report to be inaccurate, the rater provided the reason that the report was submitted after the close out date.  DPPP states the applicant has the support of all his evaluators, and should have the evaluators provide a substitute report with all his requested changes.  However, it is the evaluators’ responsibility to complete a report as they feel appropriate.

DPPP explains marking the concur/nonconcur block is a minor discrepancy and can be corrected at the military personnel flight (MPF).  Additionally, the reviewer provided a memo stating his concurrence with the information provided on the report.  DPPP notes that based on the supporting documents from all evaluators, they should provide a substitute report with an overall “5” rating.  The evaluators stated their mistake was in the overall rating not the overall assessment and the comments on the report were in fact accurate and reflected the true performance of the member.

DPPP explains supplemental promotion consideration is granted on a case-by-case basis for reasons listed in table 2.5.  A member will not normally be granted supplemental consideration if the error or omission appeared on his/her Data Verification Record (DVR) or in the Unit Personal Group (UPRG) and the individual did not take the appropriate corrective or follow up action before the original board convened.  The purpose of this change 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 pursue the change to this EPR through the ERAB until 9 August 2004, after the boards convened for the Central and Supplemental 04E8 cycle (26 January and 10 May 2004).  DPPP states the first time the contested report would have normally been considered in the promotion process was cycle 04E8 (Central SMSgt Evaluation Board).  However, the applicant was nonweighable due to his top EPR (30 September 2003) not being on file.  He therefore met the SNCO Supplemental Board on 10 May 04 and was rendered a nonselect.  His total weighted score was 226.04 (including a USAFSE (supervisor’s examination) score of 26.04) and he required a board score of 435.00 to be selected.  As a matter of information, 450.00 is the highest board score a person can receive.

DPPP’s evaluation is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant for review and comment on 25 March 2005.  As of this date, this office has received no response (Exhibit D).

_________________________________________________________________

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 injustice.  After reviewing the evidence provided, specifically the statements by the rating chain of the contested report, the board majority believes the ratings on the contested report were based on inappropriate considerations rather than the applicant’s duty performance.  All parties unanimously indicated that the ratings did not accurately reflect the applicant’s performance.  We believe any doubt in this matter should be resolved in favor of the applicant and conclude that the contested report should be removed from his records, and he should be given supplemental promotion consideration to the grade of senior master. 
_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT:

The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating to APPLICANT be corrected to show that the Senior Enlisted Performance Report, AF Form 911 (MSgt through CMSgt), rendered for the period 16 May 2003 through 30 September 2003 be, and is hereby declared void and removed from his records.

It is further recommended that he be provided supplemental consideration for promotion to the grade of senior master sergeant for all the appropriate cycles beginning with cycle 04E8.

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 applicant 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.
_________________________________________________________________

The following members of the Board considered this application in Executive Session on 25 August 2005 and 13 September 2005, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

			Panel Chair
			Panel Member
			Panel Member

By a majority vote, the members voted to approve the request.  Ms. Sharon B. Seymour voted to deny the application but did not desire to submit a minority report.  The following documentary evidence was considered in AFBCMR BC-2005-00313:

	Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 18 Jan 05 w/atchs.
	Exhibit B.  Applicant’s Master Personnel Records.
	Exhibit C.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPP dated 14 Mar 05.
	Exhibit D.  Letters, SAF/MRBR, dated 25 Mar 05.
	Exhibit E.  Letter, Applicant, dated 25 Apr 05.

		
		Panel Chair

AFBCMR BC-2005-00313