RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  02-00094
		INDEX CODE:  111.02, 131.00
		COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) rendered for the period 15 Nov 96 through 14 November 1997, be replaced with a corrected EPR.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He provided information to his supervisor for inclusion in the report but he omitted the information because he assumed it had been included in a previous report. 

In support of his request applicant provided documents associated with his Evaluation Reports Appeal Board (ERAB) appeals, a copy of the contested EPR, a copy of the corrected EPR, copy of a base newspaper article, and a listing of his accomplishments.  His complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant contracted his initial enlistment in the Regular Air Force on 28 Jul 82.  He has been progressively promoted to the grade of senior master sergeant, having assumed that grade effective and with a date of rank of 1 Feb 01.

The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application, extracted from the applicant’s military records, are contained in the letters prepared by the appropriate offices of the Air Force at Exhibits C and D.  

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPPWB reviewed applicant’s request and states that should the AFBCMR grant his request, providing he is otherwise eligible, he will be entitled to supplemental promotion consideration to the grade of senior master sergeant, beginning with cycle 99E8.  
The DPPPWB evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit C.

AFPC/DPPPE reviewed the applicant’s request and recommends denial.  DPPPE states that he previously submitted a similar appeal to the ERAB which was denied because a report is not considered erroneous or unjust because the applicant and his evaluators believe it may have contributed to his nonselection for promotion.  He contends that his rater, by his own admission, omitted significant information that may have had a significant impact on his promotion consideration.  Most reports can be changed to be harder hitting, include stratification, and provide embellishments.  However, the time to do that is before the report becomes a matter of record.  It would be inappropriate to substitute a report based on retrospective views.  It is not possible to include every accomplishment on the EPR.  The applicant ensured the rater was aware of his accomplishments and the rater included as much of this information as the form allowed.  The applicant did not provide any evidence to support that the report was erroneous or unjust.  The DPPPE evaluation is at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on 8 Feb 02 for review and response within 30 days.  As of this date, this office has received no response.

_________________________________________________________________

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 reviewing all the evidence provided, we are not persuaded that the contested report is erroneous or unjust.  In the rating process, each evaluator is required to assess a ratee's performance, honestly and to the best of their ability.  The applicant asserts that his supervisor omitted an accomplishment from his EPR that he believes is significant and should have been included.  Although we find the accomplishment commendable, we see no evidence which would lead us to believe that the applicant has been the victim of an error or injustice in this matter.  His supervisor was made aware of his accomplishments during the period, to include the accomplishment in question, and we are not convinced that every reasonable effort was not made to ensure the report he prepared was an accurate depiction of his performance and demonstrated potential.  Therefore, we agree with the Air Force office of primary responsibility and adopt their rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice.  In the absence of persuasive 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 Docket Number 02-00094 in Executive Session on 27 Mar 02, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 28 Dec 01, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPWB, dated 18 Jan 02.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPE, dated 29 Jan 02.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 8 Feb 02.