RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  02-01683

		COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED:  YES

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

The Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) rendered for the period    1 June 2001 through 6 December 2001 be removed from his records.  

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He believes the EPR is unjust because his rater rated him a 5.  If people above the rater did not want to concur, they should have put the reason why and marked him down, they should not have changed the rating.  It states that in AFI 36-2406 evaluators and no one else are required to mark reports.  If his rater said he did not give him an overall 4, then someone changed it.  If that's so, the report is wrong.  He doesn't know what went wrong, but either the Admin section made an error, or someone in his chain is trying to harm his career by letting the rating go as is, and making it seem that his rater agreed with the 4 rating-this is wrong.

In support of the applicant's appeal, he submits a copy of the contested EPR, AF Form 948, Application For Correction/Removal of Evaluation Reports, a statement from his rater, and the ERAB report.

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 technical sergeant.

The applicant filed an appeal under the provisions of AFI 36-2401, Correcting Officer and Enlisted Evaluation Reports, 1 Dec 97.  On 4 April 2002 the Evaluation Reports Appeal Board (ERAB) declined to formerly review the application and returned it without action.  The ERAB could not consider this request because approving it would cause the report to be technically flawed.  The technical flaw is that these actions require an additional rater to nonconcur with the rater and cite the specific reasons for nonoccurrence.  In addition, the unit commander would have to concur/nonconcur with the EPR and provide comments when nonconcurring.  It would be necessary for the applicant to provide a corrected EPR with his application to the ERAB.

EPR profile since 1997 reflects the following:

          PERIOD ENDING	OVERALL EVALUATION

            1 Jan 97                     5
            1 Jan 98                     5
            1 Jan 99                     5
            1 Jan 00                     5
           30 May 00                     5
           31 May 01                     5
       *    6 Dec 01                     4

     *  Contested report.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPPEP recommends the applicant’s request be denied. The applicant contends someone in the chain changed the ratings in an attempt to harm his career.  The rater provided support by stating, "He did not authorize or concur with the rating being lowered to a "4."  However, he further states, "Due to me PCSing prior to the Closeout of the "EPR", I signed some blank "EPR" forms in case there were minor changes after my departure.  This is in direct violation of AFI 36-2406, paragraph 3.12.11., and as such, the rater waived his rights as an evaluator.  Therefore, the additional rater was not required to nonconcur.  Since the rater waived his rights as an evaluator, the additional rater assumed those responsibilities and rated the applicant accordingly.  Air Force policy is that an evaluation report is accurate as written when it becomes a matter of record.  Even had the rater not waived his evaluator rights, the ultimate rating would be the same.  Therefore, the report is not erroneous or unjust.  

The AFPC/DPPPEP evaluation is attached at Exhibit C.

AFPC/DPPPWB deferred to the recommendation of AFPC/DPPPEP.  DPPPWB indicates that the first time the report was considered in the promotion process was cycle 02E7 to master sergeant (promotions effective Aug 02 - Jul 03).  Should the AFBCMR void this report as requested, providing he is otherwise eligible, the applicant will be entitled to supplemental consideration for this cycle.  He would not become a select for the 02E7 cycle as his total score would increase to 337.96, below 340.82 required for selection in his Air Force Specialty Code (AFSC).

The AFPC/DPPPWB evaluation is attached at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant reviewed the evaluations and stated that he would not be asking that the report be thrown out if something was not wrong.  If the person that nonconcurred had put his reasoning everything would be by the AFI, but they did not.  He received a favorable feedback on 10 Aug 02; nothing would have had him to suspect that he was going to be marked down.  When he stated on his previous letter that he wanted to change the raters' marking to 5, he also meant the additional raters, but he will like his application to move forward without delay.

Applicant's complete submission is at Exhibit F.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

1.	The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by existing law or regulations.

2.	The application was timely filed.

3.	Sufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of error or injustice. After reviewing the supporting documentation submitted by the applicant, we believe the contested report is not an accurate assessment of applicant's performance during the period in question. In this respect, we note the statement submitted from the rater indicating that he rated the applicant an overall “5” prior to his departure from --- AFB, GA. The rater agrees that the contested report is an inaccurate assessment of applicant’s performance. In view of this statement and in the absence of evidence to question his integrity, we recommend the contested report be declared void and removed from his record.
____________________________________________________________

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 910, rendered for the period 1 June 2001 through 6 December 2001, be declared void and removed from his records.

____________________________________________________________

The following members of the Board considered Docket Number 02-01683 in Executive Session on 31 October 2002, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

		Panel Chair
		Member
		Member

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

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, 10 May 02, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPEP, dated 24 Jun 02.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPWB, dated 25 Jun 02.
   Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 19 Jul 02.
   Exhibit F.  Letter, Applicant, dated 19 Aug 02, w/atch.

			
			Panel Chair

AFBCMR 02-01683

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 APPLICANT, be corrected to show that the Enlisted Performance Report, AF Form 910, rendered for the period 1 June 2001 through 6 December 2001, be, and hereby is, declared void and removed from his records.

		
		Director
		Air Force Review Boards Agency