RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  02-00084
		(CASE 3)
		INDEX CODES:  111.02, 131.00

		COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

The Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) rendered for the period  7 Jan 92 through 6 Jan 93 be declared void and removed from her records.

She be provided supplemental promotion consideration beginning with cycle 94A7.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

She appealed the contested EPR to the Board in Dec 92.  This appeal was denied.  She submitted another appeal for removal of an Article 15 in Mar 94.  This appeal was approved.  In Dec 01, she realized that she did not request that her first case be reopened after the second case was approved.  Since the circumstances resulting in the EPR are the same circumstances for which she received the Article 15, she feels that it is fair to again request removal of the EPR from her records.

In support of her appeal, the applicant provided copies of the two cases previously considered by the Board.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Information extracted from the Personnel Data System (PDS) indicates that the applicant is currently serving on active duty in the grade of senior master sergeant, having been promoted to that grade on 1 Dec 99.  Her Total Active Federal Military Service Date (TAFMSD) is 13 Jun 79.

Applicant's EPR profile since 1992 follows:

	PERIOD ENDING	EVALUATION

	 6 Jan 92		5
  *   6 Jan 93		3
	31 Oct 93		5
	28 Feb 94		5
	28 Feb 95		5
	28 Feb 96		5
	30 Jun 96		5
	31 Jan 97		5
	31 Jan 98		5
	31 May 99		5
	31 May 00		5
	26 Mar 01		5
	31 Jul 01		5

* Contested report.

On 17 Nov 94, the Board considered and denied an application pertaining to the applicant, requesting that the EPR closing 6 Jan 93 be voided and removed from her records.

On 8 Dec 94 and 6 Sep 95, the Board considered an application pertaining to the applicant, requesting that the Article 15 imposed on 30 Mar 93 be removed from her records.  The Board recommended that the Article 15 be voided and that she be provided supplemental promotion consideration with her corrected records.  The Deputy for Air Force Review Boards accepted the recommendation of the Board on 28 Sep 95.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPPWB indicated that only performance reports between 1 Jan 88 and 31 Dec 92 were eligible for consideration during the 94A7 cycle.  Consequently, even if the report closing 6 Jan 93 is removed, the applicant would not be entitled to supplemental consideration for this cycle.  She was selected for promotion to the grade of master sergeant during the next cycle (95A7), with the report in her records and assumed the grade on 1 Apr 95.  According to AFPC/DPPPWB, it would serve no useful purpose at this time to provide her consideration for promotion to the grade of master sergeant for the 95A7 cycle.  Should the Board grant the applicant’s request to void the contested EPR, providing she is otherwise eligible, she will be entitled to supplemental promotion consideration beginning with cycle 97E8.

A complete copy of the DPPPWB evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit C.

AFPC/DPPPE recommended denial.  According to AFPC/DPPPE, it is Air Force policy that an evaluation report is accurate as written when it becomes a matter of record.  The Board has previously rendered a decision on this matter, and in their view, the applicant had not provided any new evidence that the EPR was erroneous or unjust.

A complete copy of the AFPC/DPPPE evaluation is at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to applicant on 15 Feb 02 for review and response.  As of this date, no response has been received by this office (Exhibit E).

_________________________________________________________________

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 to timely file.

3.  Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of probable error or injustice.  After a thorough review of the evidence presented, we are not persuaded that the contested EPR was based on factors other than the applicant’s performance.  She contends that the EPR was based on an Article 15 that has now been set aside.  While the Article 15 was set aside, it appears that it was done so because of a technicality and not because she had been exonerated of any wrongdoing.  She also asserts that the EPR included information that was outside the rating period.  However, this issue was previously and, in our view, adequately addressed by the Board when it initially considered and denied her request to have the EPR removed.  Finally, the applicant claims that the contested report should have been a referral.  However, other than her assertions, no evidence has been presented which has shown to our satisfaction that the report should have been referred.  In view of the foregoing, and in the absence of evidence that the EPR closing 6 Jan  93 was an inaccurate assessment of the applicant’s performance when it was originally rendered, 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 AFBCMR Docket Number 02-00084 in Executive Session on 11 Apr 02, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 8 Jan 02, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPWB, dated 28 Jan 02, w/atch.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPE, dated 5 Feb 02.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 15 Feb 02.