RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  01-01751
				INDEX CODE:  111.02

	APPLICANT	COUNSEL:  None

	SSN		HEARING DESIRED:  None

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

The Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) covering the rating period 2 Jan 99 through 1 Jan 00 be removed from his records.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

Due to the infrequent verbal contact between him and his raters, his immediate supervisor gave him the impression that he was pleased with his (applicant's) performance, and that he was on the right track for obtaining a high rating.  His performance feedback form reflected the need for little or no improvement.  

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) returned the application without action because the member did not provide the required documentation to support his contentions.

EPR profile as a staff sergeant reflects the following:

			PERIOD ENDING 			OVERALL EVALUATION

			   1 Jan 99					5
			  *1 Jan 00					3
			   2 Oct 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 cycle 01E6 to technical sergeant.  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 01E6 cycle.  The applicant would not be a select for the 01E6 cycle if the request is granted, but he would become a select for 02E6 promotion cycle pending favorable data verification and recommendation of the commander (Exhibit C).

The Chief, Performance Evaluation Section, AFPC/DPPPEP, reviewed this application and states the applicant submitted an appeal to the ERAB.  The ERAB returned the request without action because the applicant did not provide the required documentation to support his contentions.  

The applicant is comparing the ratings on the performance feedback worksheet (PFW) with the markings on the EPR.  This is not a fair comparison; because a direct correlation between the information provided on the PFW and the assessments on the evaluation report does not necessarily exist.

Although the applicant states he provided his rater with key information for his EPR and he alleges that significant accomplishments were not in his evaluation report, the rater determines the content of the evaluation report.

Air Force policy is that an evaluation report is accurate as written when it becomes a matter of record.  When challenging an EPR, it is important to hear from the member’s rating chain, not only for support, but for clarification and explanation of the issues.  The applicant has not provided information or a show of support from his rating chain.  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:

Complete copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on 20 Jul 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 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 persuasive evidence to substantiate his contention that the contested report was not an accurate reflection of his performance.  The fact is that the applicant had an incident during the reporting period and 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.  On balance, we are persuaded the contested report is an accurate assessment of the applicant's performance during the contested time period.  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 29 August 2001, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603.

			Panel Chair
			Member
			Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

	Exhibit A.	DD Form 149, dated 7 Jun 01, w/atchs.
	Exhibit B.	Applicant's Enlisted Performance Reports.
	Exhibit C.	Letter, AFPC/DPPPWB, dated 10 Jul 01.
	Exhibit D.	Letter, AFPC/DPPPEP, dated 16 Jul 01.
	Exhibit E.	Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 20 Jul 01.