RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  02-02499 (Case 3)
		INDEX CODE:  111.02

		COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED:  YES

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

Her Enlisted Performance Report (EPR), rendered for the period 2 September 2000 through 27 July 2001, be declared void and removed from her records.
_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The contested EPR is not a true reflection of her professional ethics or quality of work on or off duty.

The contested EPR was written as reprisal by her rater due to her seeking assistance from the Military Equal Opportunity (MEO) office regarding sexual harassment involving another individual in the unit.

In support of her request, the applicant submits a copy of her 8 July 2002 appeal of her Inspector General (IG) complaint, with additional documents associated with the issues cited in her contentions, and an inquiry from her Congressman.  The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant’s Total Active Federal Military Service Date (TAFMSD) is 9 July 1981.  She is currently serving on active duty in the grade of senior master sergeant (E-8), with an effective date and date of rank of 1 July 1992.

With the exception of the contested report, all EPRs since 1991 contain “firewall ratings.”

On 27 February 2002, the applicant was advised of the results of her IG reprisal complaint filed on 21 September 2001.  The allegations that she was reprised against by receiving a referral EPR for making a protected disclosure with the Military Equal Opportunity office and that she was unfairly treated by receiving a verbal no contact order were found to be non-substantiated and her case was dismissed (refer to Exhibit A).

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 27 November 2001 (refer to Exhibit A).
_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

HQ AFPC/DPPPE recommends the application be denied. DPPPE stated that subsequent to the Evaluation Reports Appeal Board (ERAB) denied her appeal because she could not prove her conjecture about the rater’s motives, the applicant filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request to obtain her rater’s memoranda regarding her situation.  The FOIA provided memoranda from the rater, the commander and the individual the applicant contends harassed her.  The memoranda state the applicant continually tried to contact the individual she contends was harassing her even after they made it clear to her she was not to contact the individual.  The applicant contends she only tried to contact the individual to express to him that she wanted his sexual harassment to stop.  Subsequent to her meeting with the MEO office, the rater provided a punitive feedback to the applicant.  The applicant filed a complaint for Reprisal and Extension of Whistleblower Protection with the IG on 4 June 2001.  The IG determined a feedback session was not a negative personnel action and therefore did not constitute reprisal.  The applicant then filed an IG complaint on 13 August 2001 after she had been presented with her referral EPR.  The IG dismissed the complaint because documented evidence against the complainant supported the 2 EPR rating.  The IG stated that the applicant’s own complaint indicated she was the sexual aggressor.  The IG did state that the situation was handled poorly.  Based on this recommendation, the commander upgraded the report from a referral “2” rating to a non-referral “4” rating.  Although the commander supports voiding the report, he does state, “I stand by my comments on the EPR….”

DPPPE stated that the applicant did not provide convincing evidence that she was reprised against for submitting an MEO complaint against her rater.  The allegation of reprisal was thoroughly investigated by the local IG and was unsubstantiated.  This application provides no new evidence to refute the IG’s finding.  A complete copy of this evaluation is appended at Exhibit C.
_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant reviewed the advisory opinion and indicated that the investigating official of the IG report of allegation of reprisal and extension of Whistleblower Protection under 10 U.S.C. 1034 made the following statement: “We reviewed SMSgt Collet’s UPRG and PIF.  She has an outstanding service record and there was no negative information in her PIF.”  If her behavior would have been of a nature to warrant a referral EPR and be identified as a “sexual aggressor,” one would believe her PIF (Personal Information File) would have contained control roster information, letters of reprimands and/or letters of counseling.  In support of her request, the applicant submits copies of e‑mails concerning her pending IG complaint appeal.  The applicant’s complete copy submission, with attachments, is at 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.  After a thorough review of the evidence of record and applicant’s submission, we are unpersuaded that the contested EPR should be removed from her record.  The applicant’s allegations of reprisal and unfair treatment were found to be nonsubstantiated and the local IG office dismissed her case.  Following approval by the Secretary of the Air Force Inquiries Division (SAF/IGQ) and the Department of Defense Special Inquiries, the applicant’s case was closed.  The applicant has not presented convincing evidence substantiating her allegations that the report was a biased, retaliatory, or inaccurate assessment of her performance during the pertinent rating period.  We note that the additional rater used his discretionary authority to disagree with the rater.  It appears that the applicant was rated properly based on the evaluators’ perception of her performance at that point in time.  Other than the applicant’s unsubstantiated allegations, we find no evidence to indicate reprisal or unfair treatment on the part of her superiors.  We believe the applicant has failed to provide sufficient evidence to substantiate that she has been the victim of an error or injustice.  We find no compelling basis to recommend granting the relief sought in this application.

4.  The applicant's case is adequately documented and it has not been shown that a personal appearance with or without counsel will materially add to our understanding of the issues involved.  Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorably considered.
_________________________________________________________________

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 13 February 2003, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

The following documentary evidence was considered in connection with AFBCMR Docket Number 02-02499.

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 2 August 2002, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPPE, dated 27 September 2002.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 4 October 2002.
   Exhibit E.  Letter from Applicant, dated 22 October 2002,
               w/atchs.