RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  01-01724
		INDEX CODE 111.02  111.05
		COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED:  YES

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

The Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) rendered for the period    1 October 1998 to 31 May 1999 be declared void.  

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The supporting documentation proves invalid supervision during the reporting period. He believes that the documentation submitted clearly proves that contested EPR was unjustifiably written. 

He states that Lt 1___ was the Squadron Section Commander and his supervisor effective 23 Apr 99.  The leave forms signed by her authorized him to take ordinary leave on two different occasions.  The airman promotion data verification record (DVR) shows that he had 5B EPRs before and after the EPR that closed out 31 May 1999.  The Air Force Achievement Medal was from 1 June 1999 - 14 August 2000.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

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

On 2 February 1999, the applicant was notified of his commander’s intent to impose nonjudicial punishment for an alleged violation of Article 111.  Specifically, the applicant was accused of physically controlling a passenger car in a reckless manner, by running a red light and traveling at an excessive rate of speed to elude the Security Forces personnel attempting to stop him.  After consulting counsel, the applicant waived his right to demand trial by court-martial and accepted nonjudical punishment.

The commander found that the applicant had committed the offense alleged and imposed punishment of reduction to the grade of senior airman and forfeiture of $742.00 pay.  Reduction to the grade of senior airman was suspended until 9 August 1999, after which time it would be remitted without further action, unless sooner vacated.  

The applicant filed an appeal under the provisions of AFI 36-2401, Correcting Officer and Enlisted Evaluation Reports, 1 Dec 97.  The Evaluation Reports Appeal Board (ERAB) denied the application because the member did not provide the required support for his contentions.

EPR profile since 1997 reflects the following:

          PERIOD ENDING	OVERALL EVALUATION

           30 Sep 97                     5
           30 Sep 98                     5
       *   31 May 99                     2
           23 Dec 99                     5
           31 Jul 00                     5
           31 Jul 01                     5

     *  Contested report.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPPWB states that the first time the contested report was considered in the promotion process was cycle 00E6 to TSgt (promotion effective 1 Aug 00 - 1 Jul 00).  Should the Board void the report as requested, the applicant will be entitled to supplemental promotion consideration beginning with the 00E6 cycle.  He will not become a select for this cycle but would be selected for the 01E6 cycle pending a favorable data verification check and the recommendation of the commander.

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

AFPC/DPPPEP recommends the AFBCMR deny the applicant’s request to void the report.  In the ERAB application, the member provided a memorandum from SMSgt 1___ stating he was the acting first sergeant when this report closed out.  He further states that he held a meeting with the rater and the applicant to discuss the report.  This indicates that Lt 2___ was the applicant’s rater during the timeframe listed on the EPR.  Without validation from anyone in the rating scheme, his dates of supervision cannot be determined.  

The commander determines the rating chain, therefore, the ERAB requested a memorandum from the commander stating the from and through dates of Lt 2___’s supervision.  Due to the conflicting documentation, this memorandum is needed to clearly show if the rater had insufficient supervision.  This statement was never provided to the ERAB and is not included in the AFBCMR appeal.

The computer-generated products, provided by the applicant, are after the closeout date of the contested report.  They understand that sometimes the change of reporting officials (CROs) are updated into the Personnel Data System after the fact--which could support the applicant’s claim.  However, without a memorandum from the commander, this cannot be confirmed. While the SURF reflects Lt 1___’s duty title as Squadron Section Commander, it does not verify a CRO occurred on that same date.  Additionally, the leave forms provided are not adequate source documents to verify supervision.  The Air Force policy is that an evaluation report is accurate as written when it becomes a matter of record.  The applicant has not proven the report was written with insufficient supervision.

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

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant reviewed the evaluations and provided a response with attachments, which 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 the applicant’s submission, we are not persuaded that the EPR closing 31 May 1999 should be voided.  The applicant’s supporting documentation and statement are not sufficiently persuasive that he was evaluated by an inappropriate rating chain for the period 1 October 1998 through 31 May 1999.  We note the applicant has not provided statements from any of the evaluators in the rating chain concerning this report.  His 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 his burden that he 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 materially add to our understanding of the issues 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 8 November 2001, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

			 Panel Chair
			 Member
			 Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

	Exhibit A.	DD Form 149, dated 19 Jun 01, w/atchs.
	Exhibit B.	Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
	Exhibit C.	Letter, AFPC/DPPPWB, dated 2 Aug 01.
	Exhibit D.	Letter, AFPC/DPPPEP, dated 28 Aug 01.
	Exhibit E.	Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 31 Aug 01.
	Exhibit F.	Applicant's response, undated, w/atchs.