RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  02-02659
		INDEX CODE:  131.05

		COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED:  YES

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

The Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) rendered for the period 14 December 1996 to 2 March 1998, be declared void.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

His first version of the contested EPR (175 days of supervision) contained fraudulent information.  He brought this to the attention of his section commander who removed the report, rewrote the report, and reinserted a new version of the report (120 days of supervision) without authority (AFI 36-2603), thus perpetuating the fraud.  As a result of the commander’s action, he tampered with the applicant’s right to due process.  Absent his copies of both EPRs, the Air Force couldn’t confirm which was the true official report that is now a permanent matter of his unit personnel records group (UPRG).  Through a lapse in the historical recording of personnel records, on behalf of the Air Force, it is now difficult, if not impossible to use his own UPRG to defend himself against improprieties caused by the Air Force.

In support of his appeal, the applicant provided a personal statement, EPRs closing 2 March 1998, Special Order TE-0309, dated 18 April 2002, and the ERAB decision, dated 12 May 1999.

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 staff 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).

EPR profile since 1995 reflects the following:

	PERIOD ENDING	EVALUATION OF POTENTIAL

		21 Jan 95		5
		13 Dec 95		5
		13 Dec 96		5
	 *  2 Mar 98		3
		 2 Mar 99		5
		 2 Mar 00		5
		21 Jan 01		4
		21 Jan 02		4

* Contested report

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPPEP recommended denial.  They indicate that the applicant contends the first version of the EPR he viewed contained fraudulent information.  Specifically, that it stated the number of days of supervision was 175.  The applicant does not state where he viewed the first version, but for the purpose of this appeal they will assume it was in his UPRG.  He states when he brought the error to the attention of the section commander, the section commander corrected the report and reinserted it without authority.  The applicant did not provide any evidence to show the section commander placed the new document into the UPRG and the Military Personnel Flight (MPF) personnel stated to the ERAB that no other report was ever filed.

Correcting the number of days of supervision is considered a minor error IAW AFI 36-2401, Table 2, Rule 3 and does not invalidate the report.  The authority to correct this type of error is the MPF Evaluations Office.  Had the applicant addressed the issue with the MPF, the MPF would have contacted the section commander, ensured the 120 days of supervision was the correct information, and then changed the report appropriately.  Therefore, the applicant’s request to void the report is without merit.

Air Force policy is that an evaluation report is considered a working copy until it becomes a matter of record.  The applicant did not provide any evidence that the EPR was corrected inappropriately.  The differences on both reports are only administrative in nature.  As such, even if the applicant had proven his allegation (which they strongly believe he hasn’t), it would still not be appropriate to void the contested report.  The “due process” the applicant claims the commander substituting the reports denied him would have been to appeal to the ERAB.  Based on the administrative nature of the changes, the only relief the ERAB would have granted the applicant would be to substitute the reports - not void the one on file.

The evaluation is at Exhibit C.

AFPC/DPPPWB deferred their recommendation to HQ AFPC/DPPPEP.  They indicated that the first time the contested report was used in the promotion process was cycle 98E5 to staff (promotions effective September 1998 - August 1999).  Should the AFBCMR remove the report as requested, providing he is otherwise eligible, the applicant will be entitled to supplemental promotion consideration beginning with cycle 98E5.  The applicant will become a select for the 98E5 cycle if the AFBCMR grants the request pending a favorable data verification and the recommendation of the commander.

The evaluation is at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

On 20 September 2002, copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant for review and response within thirty (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 not timely filed; however, it is in the interest of justice to excuse the failure to timely file.

3.	Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of an error or injustice.  After reviewing the evidence submitted with this appeal, we note that the applicant has not submitted any persuasive documentation to support his contention that the EPR was corrected inappropriately.  In view of the above findings, we are in agreement with the comments and recommendation of the Air Force and adopt their rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice.  Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, 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 issue(s) 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 AFBCMR Docket Number 02-02659 in Executive Session on 7 November 2002, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

The following documentary evidence was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 15 August 2002, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPEP, dated 5 September 2002.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPWB, dated 6 September 2002.
   Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 20 September 2002.