RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2003-00215
		INDEX CODE: 111.05 

		COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

The Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) rendered for the period 3 January 2001 through 2 January 2002, be declared void.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He fails to understand how an EPR can have the following bullet statement without any justification, “Although an extremely hard worker, displayed several lapses in judgment this reporting period.”  He did not receive any memos or letters of counseling throughout the reporting period.  He believes the EPR closing 2 January 2002 was written based on an Article 15 he received.

In support of his appeal, the applicant provided a personal statement, Evaluation Reports Appeal Board (ERAB) Decision, dated 11 October 2002, the contested EPR closing 2 January 2002, AF Form 3070, Record of Nonjudicial Punishment Proceedings, dated 17 January 2002, a letter from the additional rater of the contested report, dated 10 July 2002, and other documentation.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant is currently serving in the Regular Air Force in the grade of senior master sergeant.

The applicant appealed the contested report under the provisions of AFI 36-2401 and the appeal was considered and denied by the Evaluation Reports Appeal Board (ERAB).  They indicated that retrospective views do not carry the weight of the initial assessment made when the facts and circumstances were fresh in the evaluator’s mind.  Since the additional rater merely concurred with the rater, and the rater is not heard from, it would be impossible to state exactly what impacted the rater’s assessment.

On 17 January 2002, the applicant was notified of his commander's intent to impose nonjudicial punishment upon him for the following:

	On or about 18 June 2001, with intent to deceive, he signed an official record, which signature was false in that he was not a certified dental technician, and was then known by him to be so false.

	On or about 26 November 2001, with intent to deceive, he signed his name on an official record, in a section designated only for licensed dentists or Certified Dental Technicians, which signature was false in that he was not a Certified Dental Technician nor a licensed dentist, and was then known by him to be so false.

On 24 January 2002, after consulting with counsel, applicant waived his right to a trial by court-martial, requested a personal appearance and submitted a written presentation.

On 31 January 2002, he was found guilty by his commander who imposed the following punishment: a forfeiture of $250.00 pay per month for 2 months.

The applicant appealed the punishment and on 26 February 2002, the commander granted the applicant’s appeal.  The Article 15 was not filed in his Unfavorable Information File (UIF).

EPR profile since 1996 reflects the following:

	PERIOD ENDING	EVALUATION OF POTENTIAL

		 2 Jan 96		5
		 2 Jan 97		5
		 2 Jan 98		5
		 2 Jan 99		5
	    2 Jan 00		5
		 2 Jan 01		5
	  * 2 Jan 02		4

* Contested report

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPPE recommended denying the applicant’s request to void his 2 January 2002 EPR; however, they recommend the last bullet in Section V, rater’s comments, be removed from the report.  This will leave in-place what the rater determined to be an accurate assessment of the applicant’s performance at the time the report was rendered.  As already indicated by the additional rater, he concurred with the assessment at that time.  They indicated that Air Force policy is that an evaluation report is accurate as written when it becomes a matter of record.  As previously indicated by the ERAB, retrospective view of the additional rater months after the initial assessment does not carry the weight of when the facts and circumstances were fresh in the evaluator’s mind.

The evaluation is at Exhibit C.

AFPC/DPPPWB defers to the recommendation of AFPC/DPPPWB.  They indicated that the applicant petitioned to have the EPR removed through the Evaluation Reports Appeal Board (ERAB) on 8 August 2002, prior to the board convening for the 02E9 cycle (15 October 2002), and was denied.  The first cycle the contested EPR was used in the promotion process was cycle 02E9 to Chief Master Sergeant (promotions effective January - December 2003).  Should the AFBCMR void the report as requested, the applicant will be entitled to supplemental consideration for the 02E9 cycle to chief master sergeant (CMSgt).

The evaluation is at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

On 2 May 2003, copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant 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 error or injustice.  The applicant requests the report be voided, asserting that during the rating period he did not receive any letters of counseling.  The additional rater of the contested report indicates that the rating chain was influenced by the pending charges against the applicant and that the report should be voided, adding that all he did was to concur with the rater.  However, no statement from the rater has been provided indicating that the pending Article 15 was the sole basis for the overall “4” rating the applicant received, or that this was not an accurate assessment of the applicant’s performance during the contested time period.  Therefore, we find no compelling basis upon which to recommend granting the requested relief.

4.	Notwithstanding the above findings, after reviewing the evidence of record, we are persuaded that the contested report should be amended by removing the last bullet in Section V of the rater’s comments.  We note that these comments would have made the report a referral report; however, the report was never referred to the applicant.  Therefore, the Board is of the opinion that these comments should be removed from the contested report and that he be provided supplemental consideration for promotion to the grade of chief master sergeant.  In view of the foregoing, and in an effort to offset any possibility of an injustice, we believe the records should be corrected to the extent indicated below.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT:

The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating to APPLICANT, be corrected to show that the Enlisted Performance Report, AF Form 911, rendered for the period 3 January 2001 through 2 January 2002, be amended in Section V, Rater’s Comments, by deleting the line “Although an extremely hard worker, displayed several lapses in judgement this reporting period.”

It is further recommended that applicant be provided supplemental consideration for promotion to the grade of chief master sergeant beginning with cycle 02E9.

If AFPC discovers any adverse factors during or subsequent to supplemental consideration that are separate and apart, and unrelated to the issues involved in this application, that would have rendered the applicant ineligible for the promotion, such information will be documented and presented to the board for a final determination on the individual’s qualification for the promotion.

If supplemental promotion consideration results in the selection for promotion to the higher grade, immediately after such promotion the records shall be corrected to show that he was promoted to the higher grade on the date of rank established by the supplemental promotion and that he is entitled to all pay, allowances, and benefits of such grade as of that date.

_________________________________________________________________

The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2003-00215 in Executive Session on 12 June 2003, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

All members voted to correct the records, as recommended.  The following documentary evidence was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 10 January 2003, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPE, dated 15 April 2003.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPWB, dated 15 April 2003.
   Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 2 May 2003.

				

AFBCMR BC-2003-00215

MEMORANDUM FOR THE CHIEF OF STAFF

	Having received and considered the recommendation of the Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records and under the authority of Section 1552, Title 10, United States Code (70A Stat 116), it is directed that:

	The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating to    , be corrected to show that the Enlisted Performance Report, AF Form 911, rendered for the period 3 January 2001 through 2 January 2002, be amended in Section V, Rater’s Comments, by deleting the line “Although an extremely hard worker, displayed several lapses in judgement this reporting period.”

	It is further directed that applicant be provided supplemental consideration for promotion to the grade of chief master sergeant beginning with cycle 02E9.

	If AFPC discovers any adverse factors during or subsequent to supplemental consideration that are separate and apart, and unrelated to the issues involved in this application, that would have rendered the applicant ineligible for the promotion, such information will be documented and presented to the board for a final determination on the individual’s qualification for the promotion.

	If supplemental promotion consideration results in the selection for promotion to the higher grade, immediately after such promotion the records shall be corrected to show that he was promoted to the higher grade on the date of rank established by the supplemental promotion and that he is entitled to all pay, allowances, and benefits of such grade as of that date.