RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  01-02492
		INDEX CODE:  111.02

		COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

The Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) rendered for the period 3 Mar 99 through 14 Oct 99 be declared void and removed from his records and restoration of his promotion to technical sergeant from the 99E6 promotion cycle, including back pay.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The rater of the contested report was influenced by senior members in the chain of command.  Many accomplishments during the rating period were not included in the EPR.

Applicant’s complete submission is attached at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant’s Total Active Federal Military Service Date is 23 Feb 87.  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 Oct 01.

Applicant’s EPR profile since 1995 reflects the following:

            PERIOD ENDING          OVERALL EVALUATION

              2 Aug 95                     5
              2 Aug 96                     5
              2 Aug 97                     5
              2 Mar 98                     4
              2 Mar 99                     3
           * 14 Oct 99                     3
             12 Sep 00                     5
             18 Jun 01                     4

     * Contested report.

The applicant filed a similar appeal under the provisions of AFI 36‑2401, Correcting Officer and Enlisted Evaluation Reports.  The Evaluation Reports Appeal Board (ERAB) denied his request to void the report because he did not supply the appropriate documentation to prove his contentions.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPPWB reviewed this application and indicated that the applicant was selected for promotion to technical sergeant during cycle 99E6 per Promotion Sequence Number (PSN) 8941.0 which would have been incremented on 1 May 00.  When he received the referral EPR, it automatically canceled his promotion for cycle 99E6 and also rendered him ineligible for the 00E6 cycle in accordance with AFI 36‑2502, Airman Promotion Program, Table 1.1, Line 22, dated 1 Jul 99.  Individuals regain their promotion eligibility only after receiving an EPR with a rating of “3” or higher that closes out on or before the Promotion Eligibility Cutoff Date (PECD) for the next cycle.  The PECD for the next cycle, 00E6, was 31 Dec 99.  Because the applicant’s last EPR was a referral closing 14 Oct 99 (he did not receive his next EPR until 13 Sep 00), he was ineligible for promotion consideration for the 00E6 cycle.  However, should the Board grant the applicant’s request and remove the referral report or void that portion of the report that makes it a referral, it could direct the promotion to technical sergeant be reinstated with a DOR and effective date of 1 May 00, providing there were no other ineligibility reasons.  (As a matter of information, the applicant was selected for promotion to technical sergeant during the 01E6 cycle and assumed the grade on 1 Oct 01).

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

AFPC/DPPPEP also reviewed this application and recommended denial.  They state that the rater of the report in question did not support the applicant’s contention of bias or that senior members in the chain of command influenced his assessment of the applicant’s duty performance.  DPPPEP states that an evaluation report is considered to represent the rating chain’s best judgment at the time it is rendered.  The applicant has not substantiated the contested report was not rendered in good faith by all evaluators or provide effective evidence that the report is an inaccurate documentation of his duty performance.  The willingness of his rater to support voiding the report is not, by itself, a valid reason to do so.  There was nothing in the letter of support from the rater indicating applicant’s report was biased or untruthful or the report was not valid as originally written, only his willingness to give the applicant a second chance.

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

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to applicant on 19 Oct 01 for review and response within 30 days.  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.  We have thoroughly reviewed the documentation submitted with this appeal, including the statement from the rater of the report in question; however, we are not persuaded that this statement supports voiding the contested report.  We note that the rater recommends the report in question be removed from the applicant’s records.  However, in our opinion, the rater did not provide persuasive rationale for the reasons he believes the contested report should be removed.  In fact, the rater states that the applicant’s performance as an enlisted recruiter was not excellent or outstanding during his tenure in recruiting service.  We also find no evidence of support from the rater of the applicant’s contention that the report was biased, untruthful, or influenced by senior members in the chain of command.  In view of the foregoing, we believe that the ratings on the report were honest assessments of applicant’s performance at the time the report was rendered and the evidence has not substantiated that the report is inaccurate or unjust as written.  Therefore, in the absence of more clear-cut evidence that the applicant has suffered either an error or an injustice, we find no basis to recommend granting the relief sought.  In view of the above determination, we find no reason to restore applicant’s line number and subsequent promotion to technical sergeant for the 99E6 promotion cycle.  We note that he was selected for promotion to the grade of technical sergeant during the 01E6 cycle and assumed the grade on 1 Oct 01.

_________________________________________________________________

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 31 January 2002, 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 22 Aug 01, w/atchs.
     Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
     Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPWB, dated 10 Sep 01,
                   w/atch.
     Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPEP, dated 12 Oct 01
     Exhibit E.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 19 Oct 01 .