RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  01-00257

		COUNSEL:  XXXXX

		HEARING DESIRED:  No

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

The Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) rendered for the period   23 March 1999 to 25 April 2000 be expunged from his records.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

There is no evidence that he has ever done anything on duty, which would give rise to this EPR.  In fact, the command did ultimately allege service connected misconduct, which resulted in an attempt to demote him.  That demotion action was denied by the commanding general of the numbered Air Force. 

The contested EPR is a reflection of his wife’s inappropriate and untruthful intrusion into his professional life.  This EPR does not reflect the truth.  He did not show “poor judgment, questionable integrity and inappropriate behavior - on and off duty.”  He demonstrated that conclusively in the demotion action and this is a vestige of that demotion action.  It should be expunged.

A copy of the counsel’s brief, with attachments, is attached at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant is currently serving in the Regular Air Force in the grade of TSgt (E-6).

The applicant appealed the contested report under the provisions of AFI 36-3201, Correcting Officer and Enlisted Evaluation Reports, based on insufficient supervision.  The appeal was considered and denied by the Evaluation Reports Appeal Board (ERAB) based on insufficient supervision.  Instead, the ERAB directed the number of days of supervision be changed to “62” days, remove the erroneous report from his Unit Personnel Record Group, and replace it with a corrected report only changing the number of days supervision.

EPR profile since 1993 reflects the following:

          PERIOD ENDING	OVERALL EVALUATION

            1 Aug 93                     5
            1 Aug 94                     5
            1 Mar 95                     5
            1 Mar 96                     4
            1 Mar 97                     5
            1 Mar 98                     5
           22 Mar 99                     3  Referral
        *  25 Apr 00                     2  Referral

     *  Contested report.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The Chief, Performance Evaluation Section, AFPC/DPPPEP, reviewed this application and recommended denial.  The applicant received two Letters of Reprimand (LOR) during the contested reporting period.  Those LORs are two examples of the applicant’s poor judgment, questionable integrity, and inappropriate behavior on and off-duty.  Furthermore, they support the front-side markdowns in Section III, Items, 4 and 5, and comments in Sections VI, Lines 2 and 13.  The EPR also documents the applicant’s excellent duty performance and job knowledge.  The Air Force policy is that an evaluation report is accurate as written when it becomes a matter of record.  To effectively challenge an EPR, it is necessary to hear from the members of the rating chain-not only for support, but also for clarification/explanation.

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

The Chief, Inquiries/AFBCMR Section, AFMPC/DPPPWB, also reviewed this application and states the first cycle the EPR closing     25 Apr 00 would normally be considered in the promotion process is the 01E7 cycle to Master Sergeant (promotion effective Aug 01 to Jul 02).  However, the fact that the EPR is a referral, renders him ineligible for consideration for promotion in accordance with AFI 36-2502, Airman Promotion Program, Table 1.1, Rule 22, dated     1 Jul 99, for the 01E7 cycle.  Individuals with a referral or “2” EPR on top are ineligible for promotion, and regain their promotion eligibility only after receiving an EPR with a rating of “3” or higher that closes out on or before the Promotion Eligibility Cutoff Date (PECD) for the next cycle.  Should the report be voided as requested, he could still not be considered supplementally as he was also ineligible for the previous cycle, 00E7, due to a referral EPR closing 22 Mar 99.  Therefore, in order for the applicant to be eligible for supplemental promotion consideration, provided he is otherwise eligible, (not ineligible for any of the other reasons outlined in AFI 36-2502, Table 1.1) and recommended by his commander, both EPRs 22 Mar 99 and 25 Apr 00, would have to be voided.

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

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to applicant’s counsel on 30 Mar 01 for review and response.  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 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 contested EPR should be removed from his records.  His and counsel’s contentions are duly noted; however, we do not find these assertions, in and by themselves, sufficiently persuasive to override the evidence of record.  We note that during the contested time period, the applicant received two (2) Letters of Reprimand.  Therefore, in our opinion the applicant has not established that his actions during the contested reporting period did not warrant the comments made by the evaluators.  In view of the above finding, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of the Air Force and adopt their rational as the basis for our conclusion that applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice.  Therefore, absent persuasive evidence to the contrary, we find no compelling basis to recommend granting the relief sought.

_________________________________________________________________

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 22 May 2001, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

			Panel Chair
			Member
			Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

	Exhibit A.	DD Form 149, dated 23 Jan 01, w/atchs.
	Exhibit B.	Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
	Exhibit C.	Letter, AFPC/DPPPEP, dated 19 Mar 01.
	Exhibit D.	Letter, AFPC/DPPPWB, dated 20 Feb 01.
	Exhibit E.	Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 30 Mar 01.

	
	Panel Chair