RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  01-02350
				INDEX CODE:  111.02

	APPLICANTS	COUNSEL:  None

	SSN		HEARING DESIRED:  None

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

The Airman Performance Reports (APRs)/Enlisted Performance Reports  (EPRs) for  the periods  closing 17 Feb 82, 11 Jan 90, 15 Dec 90, 27 Apr 91, and 27 Apr 92 be declared void.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The ratings she received on several EPRs were not an accurate assessment of her performance and accomplishments.  She feels the evaluators did not consider pertinent documented information that was accessible when preparing her EPRs.

Applicant's complete submission is attached at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant served on active duty from 18 Feb 81 - 15 Aug 92. 

The applicant alleges she appealed the contested reports under the provisions of AFR 31-11, Correction of Airman and Officer and Evaluation Reports, however, there are no files available to substantiate this.

Applicant's EPR profile reflects the following:

			PERIOD ENDING 			OVERALL EVALUATION

			 *17 Feb 82					7
			  17 Feb 83					9
			   2 Nov 83					9
			   2 Nov 84					9
			  30 Jun 85					9
			  30 Jun 86					9
			  30 Jun 87					8
			  30 Jun 88					9
			  11 Jan 89					9
							NEW SYSTEM
			 *11 Jan 90					3
			 *15 Dec 90					3
			 *27 Apr 91					2
			 *27 Apr 92					4

* Contested reports.

Applicant was voluntarily released from active duty on 15 Aug 92, under the provisions of the Special Separation Benefit.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR STAFF EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPPWB reviewed all the applicant's promotion considerations to staff sergeant and technical sergeant prior to her separation from active duty and stated even if the applicant had the APP/EPR weighted score of 135.00, her total score would not have increased sufficiently enough to meet the promotion cutoff score needed for promotion selection for any of the cycles (Exhibit C).

AFPC/DPPPEP states the applicant alleges she filed an appeal under AFR 31-11, Correction of Airman and Officer Evaluation Reports, however, the applicant did not provide a copy of the Evaluation Reports Appeal Board (ERAB) decision.  DPPPEP maintains case files for three years and therefore cannot address the ERAB's decision in the applicant's appeal.  

The applicant's  contention that the reports closing 17 Feb 82, 11 Jan 90, 27 Apr 91 and 27 Apr 92 are not accurate assessments of her performance is duly noted, however, Air Force policy is that an evaluation report is accurate as written when it becomes a matter of record.  They further state, to effectively challenge an EPR, it is imperative to hear from all the members of the rating chain--not only for support, but also for clarification and explanation.  The applicant has not provided any information or documented support from her rating chain on any of the contested reports.  When information is absent from the rating chain--documentation from other official sources, i.e., Inspector General, Military Equal Opportunity is appropriate; the applicant has not provided any supporting documentation with this case.

The applicant  also alleges she received a referral EPR closing 27 Apr 91, however, in reviewing her records they do not find a referral memorandum or rebuttal comments attached to the EPR on file.  The rater has the final decision in determining whether a report will be a referral.  Therefore, since the applicant has 
not provided support from her evaluators or a copy of the referral memorandum or rebuttal comments proving the report was referred, they must presume the evaluators and commanders decided not to refer the report.  There is no requirement to route EPRs with the overall rating of "2" through the Staff Judge Advocate, or complete non-judicial punishment paperwork.

The applicant feels the EPR that closed out on 27 Apr 91 should not have been considered in the promotion cycle, because she had forwarded that report to the ERAB.  All reports are factored in "as is" unless voided or changed by the ERAB.  Enlisted promotions will give a member supplemental promotion consideration after the ERAB voids or changes a report, if the member requests supplemental consideration.

A report is not considered erroneous or unfair because the member believes it is.  There are many factors that may cause a change in performance standards, thus producing changes in ratings and comments--the member's ability to adapt to a new position, station or supervisor.  To change a report simply because the applicant feels there was no consistency in the reports she received is inappropriate.  The applicant has only provided her retrospective view of the facts and circumstances, none from any official source, therefore based on information provided, DPPPEP recommends denying the applicant's request.

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

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR STAFF EVALUATION:

The applicant forwarded an e-mail stating that she wanted to ensure accurate information pertaining to her case is being reviewed.  She further states that a letter from DPPPWB recommends that the appeal, in reference to the contested EPRs, be denied.  She makes reference to receiving an evaluation report in Oct 89 and not in Jan 90 and  she received an annual report in Oct 90.  She received a mandatory EPR in 92, corresponding with her separation date of Jul/Aug 92.  She was transferring between stations in Apr 92 and there may be some confusion because she also took some administrative leave between transfers.  She thinks the Apr 92 date may have been mistakenly placed in her file (Exhibit F).

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

1.	The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by existing law or regulations.

2.	The application was not timely filed; however, it is in the interest of justice to excuse the failure of timely file.

3.	Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of probable error or injustice.  After reviewing the evidence submitted with this appeal, the Board notes that the applicant has not submitted any supporting documentation from the various rating chains and has failed to provide sufficient evidence showing that the contested reports were not accurate assessments as rendered.  The Board finds no evidence that the rating chains could not render objective evaluations of the applicant’s performance on the contested reports.  In view of the above findings, the Board agrees with the opinion and recommendation of the Air Force and adopts their rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice.  Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no compelling basis to recommend granting the relief sought in this application.

_________________________________________________________________

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 15 November 2001, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603.

		Panel Chairman
		Member
		Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

	Exhibit A.	DD Form 149, dated 9 Aug 01, w/atchs.
	Exhibit B.	Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
	Exhibit C.	Letter, AFPC/DPPPWB, dated 6 Sep 01.
	Exhibit D.	Letter, AFPC/DPPPEP, dated 13 Sep 01.
	Exhibit E.	Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 28 Sep 01.
	Exhibit F.	Applicant's Response.