RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  02-01278
		INDEX CODE:  111.02

		COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His Enlisted Performance Report (EPR), rendered for the period 9 September 1999 through 8 September 2000, be declared void and removed from his records. 
_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

Undue emphasis was placed on his Unfavorable Information File (UIF) for financial irresponsibility.  Since the UIF, Letter of Counseling (LOC) and Letter of Reprimand (LOR) should not have been administered, the Referral EPR is unjustified.

The contested report was not referred back to him after the additional rater added new derogatory information.

In support of his request, the applicant submits a copy of his AFI 36-2401 application, which includes a personal statement, the contested Referral EPR, with rebuttal, and additional documents associated with the issues cited in his contentions.  The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Information extracted from the Personnel Data System (PDS) reveals the applicant’s Total Active Federal Military Service Date (TAFMSD) as 10 Oct 91.  He is currently serving on active duty in the grade of staff sergeant (E-5), with an effective date and date of rank of 1 Aug 97.  The following is a resume of his EPR ratings subsequent to his promotion to that grade.

		Period Ending	Evaluation

		  24 Jan 98	5 - Immediate Promotion
		   7 Oct 98	5
		   8 Sep 99	5
		 * 8 Sep 00	3 - Consider for Promotion
		   8 Sep 01	4 - Ready for Promotion

* Contested Referral Report

A similar appeal by the applicant, under Air Force Instruction (AFI) 36-2401, was considered and denied by the Evaluation Report Appeal Board (ERAB) on 23 Feb 01 (refer to Exhibit A).

The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application, extracted from the applicant’s military records, are contained in the letter prepared by the appropriate office of the Air Force at Exhibit C.
_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

HQ AFPC/DPPPEP recommends the application be denied.  DPPPEP stated that, during the contested reporting period, the applicant received a Letter of Counseling (LOC), dated 30 Dec 99, and a Letter of Reprimand (LOR), dated 22 Jun 00, for “isolated incidents.”  DPPPEP referenced the decision of the Evaluation Reports Appeal Board (ERAB), which states that “Evaluators are obligated to consider incidences, their frequency, and periods of substandard performance.”  DPPPEP stated that the additional rater’s comments in Section VI of the contested report do not add new derogatory information; therefore, the additional rater was not required to refer the report to the ratee a second time.  With respect to the rater’s comments in Section V, Line 13, of the contested report, the comment on the report identifies the poor management of finances as the underlying conduct.  Therefore, the comment is not vague or nonspecific.  Should the Board determine the UIF was unjust, DPPPEP recommends the portion of Section V, Line 13,that reads “that ultimately led to a UIF” be voided from the report.  The remainder of Section VI, Line 13, should remain, as well as the referral documentation and Section VII, Additional Rater’s Comments.  A complete copy of this evaluation is appended at Exhibit C.

HQ AFPC/DPPPWB stated that the first time the contested report would have been considered in the promotion process was Cycle 01E6 to technical sergeant (E-6), promotions effective Aug 01 - Jul 02.  However, since the report was a referral, the applicant was ineligible for promotion consideration during that cycle.  Should the Board void the report in its entirety, providing he is otherwise eligible, the applicant will be entitled to supplemental promotion consideration commencing with Cycle 01E6.  They defer to the recommendation of HQ AFPC/DPPPEP.  A complete copy of this evaluation, with attachment, is appended at Exhibit D.
_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to applicant on 28 June 2002 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 timely filed.

3.  Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of error or injustice.  The applicant contends that the EPR should be removed from his record because undue emphasis was placed on his UIF for financial irresponsibility.  In this respect, we note that the evidence provided indicates the applicant had financial difficulties during the contested rating period and that he worked to resolve his financial problems.  With regard to the UIF issue, evidence has not been presented which would lead us to believe that the determinations by the applicant’s commander to issue an LOR and to establish a UIF were improper or contrary to the provisions of the governing instructions under which they were effected.  We have seen no compelling evidence indicating that the information presented to the commander was erroneous or that by taking the actions he did, the commander abused his discretionary authority.  In addition, we are constrained to note that evaluators are required to assess a ratee’s performance, honestly and to the best of their ability, based on their observance of an individual’s performance.  We have noted the documents provided with the applicant’s submission.  However, they do not, in our opinion, support a finding that the evaluators were unable to render unbiased evaluations of the applicant’s performance or that the ratings on the contested report were based on factors other than applicant’s performance during the contested rating period.  There is no indication in the record before us that the applicant’s rating chain did not have reasonable information available concerning the applicant’s performance during the contested rating period on which to base a reasonably accurate assessment.  With regard to applicant’s contention that the contested report should have been referred back to him, we did not find that the additional rater’s comments added any new significant information to the contested report.  Additionally, we found no evidence that the contested report was prepared contrary to the governing instruction.  In view of the foregoing and since we were unable to conclude that the UIF was erroneous or unjust, we find no compelling basis to recommend favorable action on the applicant’s request.
_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:

The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of 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 02‑01278 in Executive Session on 15 August 2002, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:
The following documentary evidence was considered: 

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 1 Apr 02, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPPEP, dated 17 Jun 02.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPPWB, dated 12 Jun 02, w/atch.
   Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 28 Jun 02.