RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  01-00192
		INDEX CODE:  111.00, 111.02

		COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED:  YES

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

The Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) rendered for the period 2 May 96 through 31 Mar 97 be declared void and removed from her records.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The ratings and comments are inconsistent with prior or subsequent evaluations; the comments are inconsistent with assigned ratings; a personality conflict existed between herself and the rater; she did not receive counseling or feedback; both the rater and indorser made unfavorable comments on the report; and, the rater did not personally observe her from Oct 96 through Mar 97.

Applicant’s complete submission is attached at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant’s Total Active Federal Military Service Date (TAFMSD) is 7 Mar 84.  She is currently serving in the Regular Air Force (RegAF) in the grade of technical sergeant, effective, and with a date of rank (DOR) of 1 Sep 00.

Applicant’s EPR profile since 1989 follows:

            PERIOD ENDING          OVERALL EVALUATION

              6 Dec 89                     5
              6 Dec 90                     5
             17 Sep 91                     4
             29 Feb 92                     3
              1 Mar 93                     5
              1 Mar 94                     5
              1 Mar 95                     5
             29 Jun 95                     5
              1 May 96                     4
           * 31 Mar 97                     3
             31 Mar 98                     5
             31 Mar 99                     5
             29 Jul 99                     5
             29 Jul 00                     5

     *  Contested report.

A similar appeal was submitted under AFI 36‑2401, Correcting Officer and Enlisted Evaluations Reports, which was denied by the Evaluation Reports Appeal Board (ERAB).

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The Chief, Inquiries/AFBCMR Section, AFPC/DPPPWB, reviewed this application and indicated that the first time the contested report was considered in the promotion process was cycle 98E6 to technical sergeant (promotions effective Aug 98 - Jul 99).  Should the Board void the report in its entirety, providing she is otherwise eligible, the applicant will be entitled to supplemental promotion consideration beginning with cycle 98E6.  However, she will not become a selectee during cycles 98E6 or 99E6 if the Board grants the request.  The applicant became a selectee during the 00E6 cycle with a DOR and effective date of 1 Sep 00.

A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit C.

The Chief, Performance Evaluation Section, AFPC/DPPPEP, also reviewed this application and indicated that while the applicant believes the ratings and comments on the EPR are inconsistent with her prior and subsequent evaluations, that does not render the report erroneous or unjust.  A report evaluates performance during a specific period and reflects a member’s performance, conduct, and potential at that time, in that position.

While the applicant believes the comments are inconsistent with assigned ratings, her EPR documents her excellent work in claims and her inability to perform well in the military justice area.  Although she does not believe she should have been rated on a job she did not perform daily (military justice), to be awarded Air Force Specialty Code (AFSC) 5J051, she should have been experienced in general office management and preparing and processing courts-martial and other military justice actions or claims for and against the United States Government.  It therefore follows that she should be evaluated on her performance of those duties.

DPPPEP does not believe that a personality conflict existed between the applicant and the rater.  She did not provide official findings from an Inspector General (IG) or Military Equal Opportunity investigation substantiating a personality conflict existed between her and her rater.  DPPPEP points out that she received an overall “3” and a “5” promotion recommendation from the same rater on the 1997 and 1998 reports.

In regard to counseling and performance feedback, lack of counseling or feedback, by itself, is not sufficient to challenge the accuracy or justness of a report.  Evaluators must confirm they did not provide counseling or feedback and that this directly resulted in an unfair evaluation.

In regard to applicant’s allegations that the rater and indorser made unfavorable comments on the report, she did not provide any evidence from credible sources to prove her allegations, only her opinion of the contested EPR.

While the applicant contends her rater did not personally observe her performance between Oct 96 and Mar 97, many individuals have to perform duties without the benefit of direct daily supervision; therefore, separation alone is not a good argument.  The applicant did not provide documentation showing that her evaluators had no valid basis on which to assess her performance.

DPPPEP further states that, while not specifically assigned military justice duties, the applicant was required to perform them when tasked.  The Paralegal Career Field encompasses functions relating to military justice, including court reporting, administrative boards reporting, accident and collateral investigations, depositions, and other legal proceedings.

DPPPEP recommends denial of applicant’s request.  They state that Air Force policy is that an evaluation report is accurate as written when it becomes a matter of record and to effectively challenge an EPR, it is necessary to hear from all the members of the rating chain-not only for support but also for clarification/explanation.  The applicant has failed to provide any information/support from the rating chain on the contested EPR.

A complete copy of their evaluation is attached at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Applicant reviewed the Air Force evaluations and provided an eight-page letter responding to the advisory opinions.  She states, in part, that her life was so altered by this process that she would like the Board to know that she is happily married and has three well-mannered boys.  She requests a positive decision in her favor and approval of her appeal to have the contested EPR voided in its entirety and that she be considered for supplemental promotion.

Applicant’s complete response, with attachments, is attached 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 probable error or injustice.  After a thorough review of the evidence of record and applicant’s submission, we are not persuaded that the EPR closing 31 Mar 97 should be declared void and removed from her records.  Her contentions are duly noted; however, we do not find these uncorroborated assertions, in and by themselves, sufficiently persuasive to override the rationale provided by the Air Force.  We therefore agree with the recommendations of the Air Force and adopt the rationale expressed as the basis for our decision that the applicant has failed to sustain her burden that she has suffered either an error or an injustice.  Therefore, we find no compelling basis to recommend granting the relief sought.

4.	The applicant’s case is adequately documented and it has not been shown that a personal appearance, with or without counsel, will add to our understanding of the issue(s) 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 probable 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 this application in Executive Session on 19 June 2001, under the provisions of Air Force Instruction 36‑2603:

	            Panel Chair
	            Member
	            Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

     Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 6 Nov 00, w/atchs.
     Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
     Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPWB, dated 6 Feb 01.
     Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPEP, dated 13 Feb 01.
     Exhibit E.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 23 Mar 01.
     Exhibit F.  Letter fr applicant, dated 20 Apr 01, w/atchs.

                                   
                                   Panel Chair