RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  01-01367
				INDEX CODE:  111.02

	APPLICANT	COUNSEL:  None

	SSN		HEARING DESIRED:  None

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

The Enlisted  Performance Report (EPR)  rendered for the period 28 May 97 through 27 May 98 be declared void.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The EPR in question was not an accurate assessment of his overall performance.

Applicant's complete submission is attached at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant is currently serving in the Regular Air Force in the grade of staff sergeant.

The applicant appealed the contested report under the provisions of AFI 36-2401, Correcting Officer and Enlisted Evaluations Reports.  The Evaluation Reports Appeal Board (ERAB) was not convinced by the documentation submitted by the applicant and denied his request.

The applicant received an Article 15 in Oct 97 for financial irresponsibility, wrongful use of his Government American Express Travel Charge Card, and making a false official statement.  

EPR profile as a staff sergeant reflects the following:

			PERIOD ENDING 			OVERALL EVALUATION

			  20 Sep 92					5
			  27 May 93					4
			  27 May 94					4
			  27 May 95					4
			  27 May 96					5
			  27 May 97					5
			 *27 May 98					4
			  29 Dec 98					5
			  29 Dec 99					5
			  29 Dec 00					5

* Contested report.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR STAFF EVALUATION:

The Chief, Inquiries/AFBCMR Section, AFPC/DPPPWB, reviewed this application and stated the applicant's EPR was considered in the promotion process for the 99E6 technical sergeant promotion board.  They further stated that if the Board voids the EPR in its entirety, or upgrades the overall rating, providing the applicant is otherwise eligible, the applicant would be entitled to supplemental consideration beginning with the 99E6 cycle.  The applicant would not be a select for the 99E6 cycle if the request is granted, but he would become a select for 00E6 promotion cycle pending favorable data verification and recommendation of the commander (Exhibit C).

The Chief, Performance Evaluation Section, AFPC/DPPPE, reviewed this application and states the applicant submitted an appeal to the ERAB and the ERAB was not convinced that the applicant’s EPR was written with prejudice.  The ERAB stated the applicant did not submit any evidence to support the voiding of the EPR.  The applicant has not submitted any documentation addressing how the EPR is not reflecting an accurate assessment of his overall performance.  The EPR in question does not contain a reference to the Article 15, but it does have a statement about the applicant's facing exceptional challenges managing his personal finances.  The applicant has not provided any statements from the commander or the first sergeant.  The commander and the first sergeant are responsible for reviewing the EPRs on all assigned personnel for quality force indicators.  This review ensures the evaluations accurately describe the member's performance and aids in determining realistic promotion recommendations.  Air Force's policy is that an evaluation report is accurate as written when it becomes a matter of record.  The Enlisted Evaluation System was designed to provide a reliable, long-term, cumulative record of performance and potential based on performance.  The applicant's rating chain in accordance with policy chose to articulate his substandard duty performance on his evaluation.  Therefore, based on the evidence submitted they recommend denying the applicant’s request.

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

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR STAFF EVALUATION:

Upon review of the Air Force evaluations the applicant submitted additional letters of support from the commander and the first sergeant.  

The applicant feels based on his accomplishments during the rating period that this EPR should be voided.  He states his performance before and after the EPR in question reflect his abilities, dedication, and professionalism.

He was a new single father and had to face some unforeseen financial challenges and made an inappropriate choice in trying to resolve the situation.  He goes on to state that in most instances of this kind the member is removed from special duty assignment, but with the many recommendations he received, he was retained due to his work ethics, his accomplishments and his determination to excel (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.	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 unpersuaded that relief should be granted.  Applicant’s contentions are duly noted; however, we do not find these assertions, in and by themselves, sufficiently persuasive to override the rationale provided by the offices of the Air Force.  The applicant did not provide any evidence as to why the contested report was not an accurate reflection of his performance.  In accordance with Air Force policy an evaluation report is accurate as written when it becomes a matter or record.  Each evaluator has the obligation when writing the performance report to consider any incidents of substandard duty performance and the significance of the substandard performance in assessing the service member's overall performance and potential.  We therefore adopt the Air Force's rationale expressed as the basis for our decision that the applicant has failed to sustain his burden that he has suffered either an error or an injustice.  Hence, 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 8 August 2001, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603.

The following documentary evidence was considered:

	Exhibit A.	DD Form 149, dated 14 May 01, w/atchs.
	Exhibit B.	Applicant's Enlisted Performance Reports.
	Exhibit C.	Letter, AFPC/DPPPWB, dated 22 May 01.
	Exhibit D.	Letter, AFPC/DPPPEP, dated 5 Jun 01.
	Exhibit E.	Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 15 Jun 01.
	Exhibit F.	Applicant's Response, dated 11 Jul 01.

					 	
				Panel Chair