RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  02-02455
		INDEX CODE:  

		COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

The Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) rendered for the period    16 June 1997 through 15 June 1998 be declared void and removed from his records.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The contested report is unjust and it does not accurately reflect his accomplishments.

In support of the appeal, applicant submits a copy of a report and briefing showing results of unit inspections, a copy of his initial and mid-term feedback worksheets, and two character references.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

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

EPR profile since 1996 reflects the following:

      PERIOD ENDING                 EVALUATION OF POTENTIAL

         15 Sep 96				  5
         15 Jun 97				  5
        *15 Jun 98				  4
         15 Jun 99				  5
          1 May 00				  5
          1 May 01				  5

      *Contested Report

The applicant filed an appeal under the provisions of AFI 36-2401, Correcting Officer and Enlisted Evaluation Reports,        1 December 1997.  The Evaluation Reports Appeal Board (ERAB) denied his request.
_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPP states that it is the evaluators’ responsibility to determine which accomplishments are included on the EPR.  Further, although an inspection measures performance at a point in time, a rater evaluates a member’s performance over the entire period of the report.  Section V, Rater’s Comments, is the rater’s assessment of the ratee, not the ratee’s assessment of himself.

In order to void a report, there must be clear evidence that the original evaluation was unjust or wrong.  The applicant claims he was unfairly held accountable for problems within the unit, but provided nothing more than unsubstantiated conjecture in an attempt to validate his claim.  He must provide factual, specific and substantiated information from credible officials based on firsthand observation or knowledge.

In summary, an evaluation report is considered to represent the rating chain’s assessment at the time it is rendered.  Once a report is accepted for file, only strong evidence to the contrary warrants correction or removal from an individual’s record.  The burden of proof is on the applicant.  He has not substantiated his contention that the contested report was not rendered in good faith by all evaluators based on knowledge available at the time.  Therefore, they recommend denial of applicant’s request.

A complete copy of the evaluation, w/attachment, is at Exhibit C.

AFPC/DPPPWB states that a member will not normally be granted supplemental consideration if the error or omission appeared on his/her Data Verification Record (DVR) or in the Unit Personnel Record Group (UPRG) and the individual did not take the appropriate corrective or follow up action before the original board convened.  The purpose of this policy is to reduce the number of “after the fact” changes that are initiated in an effort to get a second opportunity for promotion.  The applicant states he submitted an appeal package to his MPF in August 2001, well after selections for cycle 98E8 were released (11 March 1998).  The first time the contested EPR was used in the promotion process was cycle 98E8 to senior master sergeant (SMSgt) (promotions effective April 1998-March 1999).  Should the AFBCMR void the report as requested, the applicant will be entitled to supplemental consideration beginning with cycle 98E8.

A complete copy of their evaluation is attached at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

On 4 October 2002, 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 probable error or injustice.  After reviewing the evidence of record, we are not persuaded that the applicant’s records are in error or that he has been the victim of an injustice.  His contentions are noted; however, in our opinion, the detailed comments provided by the appropriate Air Force offices adequately address those allegations.  Therefore, we agree with opinions and recommendations of the Air Force and adopt their rationale as the basis for the conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice.  In the absence of 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 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 this application in Executive Session on 9 January 2003, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

The following documentary evidence was considered:

	Exhibit A.	DD Form 149, dated 3 Jul 02, w/atchs.
	Exhibit B.	Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
	Exhibit C.	Letter, AFPC/DPPP, dated 13 Sep 02.
	Exhibit D.	Letter, AFPC/DPPPWB, dated 18 Sep 02.
	Exhibit E.	Letter, AFBCMR, dated 4 Oct 02.