RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:                       DOCKET NUMBER:  01-01789
                                        INDEX CODE:  111.02

 COUNSEL:  NONE

HEARING DESIRED:  YES

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

The Enlisted Performance Reports (EPRs) rendered for the periods 2 Oct 98 through 1 Oct 99 and 2 Oct 99 through 2 Aug 00 be upgraded or declared void and removed from his records.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The two EPRs were reprisal for filing both an Inspector General (IG) complaint and a Social Actions complaint.

Applicant’s complete submission is attached at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant’s Total Active Federal Military Service Date (TAFMSD) is 9 Apr 84.  He 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 Jan 00.

Applicant’s EPR profile since 1992 reflects the following:

            PERIOD ENDING          OVERALL EVALUATION

             14 Nov 92                     5
             23 Dec 93                     5
             23 Dec 94                     5
             23 Dec 95                     5
             23 Jan 97                     5
             23 Jan 98                     5
              1 Oct 98                     5
           *  1 Oct 99                     4
           *  2 Aug 00                     4

     * Contested reports.

Applicant submitted a similar appeal under the provisions of AFI 36‑2401, Correcting Officer and Enlisted Evaluation Reports.  The Evaluation Reports Appeal Board (ERAB) returned the applicant’s appeal without action and advised the applicant that in order to prove reprisal, he would need to contact the Inspector General (IG) and file an official complaint.  Once the investigation was complete (reviewed and validated by appropriate officials), he could then resubmit his appeal under the provisions of AFI 36‑2401.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The Chief, Inquires/AFBCMR Section, AFPC/DPPPWB, stated that the first time the contested report closing 1 Oct 99 was considered in the promotion process was cycle 00E6 to technical sergeant (promotions effective Aug 00 - Jul 01).  However, because the applicant was selected to the grade of technical sergeant during this cycle, no supplemental promotion consideration will be required should the Board grant his request.  Based on his DOR for technical sergeant of 1 Oct 00, the subject reports will not be considered again in the promotion process until cycle 03E7 to master sergeant.  Promotions for this cycle will be announced during the May/Jun 03 time frame.

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

The Chief, Performance Evaluation Section, AFPC/DPPPEP, indicated that neither the IG nor the Social Actions office substantiated the applicant’s allegations.  Air Force policy is that an evaluation report is accurate as written when it becomes a matter of record.  The applicant did not provide sufficient evidence or evaluator support to warrant voiding or upgrading the reports.  He did not submit any documentation indicating he has contacted the IG concerning alleged reprisal.  The ERAB recommended the applicant resubmit his appeal after pursuing the reprisal complaint with the IG.  DPPPEP recommends the Board deny the applicant’s request to void or upgrade the contested reports.

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 indicated that he located the personnel he could get in touch with and explained the situation to them and asked if they could help him.  They were reluctant to be part of the process he is trying to accomplish.  Time went by and he could not get or provide additional information.  Therefore, he contacted the IG again to clarify that he did not have anything to add.  Then he was told there was no need to file the report if he did not have additional evidence to substantiate the complaint.  Otherwise, he had to go back to Germany and talk to the people who might remember after those years and who would be willing to step forward to support his appeal.  He contacted two individuals who would submit or write a letter to support and correct the record.  He received one letter from an individual who works outside of maintenance and he is waiting for one more from an individual who was his assistant and the Noncommissioned Officer-in-Charge (NCOIC) of Radio Maintenance who really knew what happened all those times and years in their work place.  He requests the Board consider this additional information to support his appeal as evidence.  He states that the only way we can get out the truth is to go to court where the people have to tell the truth and not have any reprisal.

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.  We have thoroughly reviewed the documentation submitted with this appeal; however, we are not persuaded that either an error or injustice exists.  The applicant asserts that the two EPRs were reprisal for filing an Inspector General complaint against his commander and a Social Actions complaint of discrimination against his supervisor.  However, other than his own assertions, the applicant has provided no evidence substantiating his allegations of reprisal.  Nor did he provide sufficient evidence that would lead us to conclude that the evaluators who were tasked with the responsibility of assessing his duty performance were precluded from rendering unbiased evaluations of his performance or that the ratings were based on any factors other than his duty performance during the periods in question.  In view of the foregoing, and in the absence of evidence to the contrary, 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 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 16 October 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 25 Jun 01, w/atchs.
     Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
     Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPWB, dated 10 Jul 01.
     Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPEP, dated 18 Jul 01.
     Exhibit E.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 20 Jul 01.
     Exhibit F.  Letter fr applicant, dated 27 Aug 01, w/atchs.