RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  02-02787
		INDEX CODE:  111.02

		COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

The Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) rendered for the period    7 March 1998 through 6 March 1999 be declared void and removed from his records.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The “4” rating does not match the accomplishments for the reporting period; the feedback AF Form 931 marked to the extreme right margin stated he needed little or no improvement; he received no counseling from his supervisor if there was need for improvement from the last feedback prior to EPR closeout; his entire career reflects superior performance in all areas of responsibilities past and present, there is no negative documentation; and, his rating has impacted his career advancement, promotion to the next rank, and his faith in the EPR system.

In support of the appeal, applicant submits three character references, Performance Feedback Worksheets (PFWs), and his previous EPRs.

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 technical sergeant.

EPR profile since 1996 reflects the following:

      PERIOD ENDING                 EVALUATION OF POTENTIAL

         6 Mar 96				  5
         6 Mar 97				  5
         6 Mar 98				  5
        *6 Mar 99				  4
         6 Mar 00				  5
         6 Mar 01				  5
         6 Mar 02				  5

      *Contested Report

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPPEP states that there is not necessarily a direct correlation between information provided during feedback sessions and the assessments on evaluation reports.  The PFW acts as a scale of where the ratee stands in relation to the performance expectations of the rater.  A PFW with all items marked “needs little or no improvement” means the ratee is meeting the rater’s standards at that time.  It does not guarantee a firewalled EPR.  They further state that it is the rater’s ultimate responsibility to determine which accomplishments are included on the EPR.  The report is not inaccurate or unfair simply because the applicant believes it is.  Furthermore, ratings are not erroneous or unjust because they are inconsistent with other rating given in an individual’s career.  A report evaluates performance during a specific period and reflects performance, conduct, and potential at that time, in that position.  It is not reasonable to compare one report covering a certain period of time with another report covering a different period of time.  This does not allow for changes in the ratee's performance.  They note that the EPR immediately prior to the contested EPR was written by the same rater, who must have seen changes in duty performance warranting a difference in ratings from one report to the next.

In summary, Air Force policy is that an evaluation report is considered to represent the rating chain’s best judgment at the time it is rendered.  They contend that once a report is accepted for file, only strong, clear evidence to the contrary warrants correction or removal from an individual’s record.  The applicant has provided no evidence to show the evaluation is either erroneous or unjust.  Therefore, they recommend denial of applicant’s request.

A complete copy of the evaluation is attached at Exhibit C.

AFPC/DPPPWB states that the first time the contested report was used in the promotion process was cycle 01E7 to master sergeant.  Should the AFBCMR void the report as requested, providing he is otherwise eligible, the applicant will be entitled to supplemental consideration beginning with cycle 01E7.  He would not be selected as his total score would increase to 316.84 and the score required for selection in his Air Force Specialty Code (AFSC) is 331.50.  He would become a select for cycle 02E7 as his total score would increase to 336.83 and the score required for selection in his AFSC is 331.82.  Therefore, they defer to the recommendation of AFPC/DPPPEP.

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

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Applicant states that the EPR in question has effected his career and he would like to add the following information:

    a.  In March 2000, his then immediate supervisor, MSgt J--- P. H--- recommended him for a decoration prior to his change of duty station.  The justification was his performance of superior flight chief duties, educational accomplishments, community service, and being selected squadron flight chief of the year (1999).  However, MSgt H---‘s recommendation was denied and his supervisors informed him of the squadron policy.  If an individual received a 4 EPR during their tour of duty with the squadron then he/she was not eligible for a decoration.

    b.  The current job position he holds was also very difficult to acquire.  It was a lengthy process to convince his current commander to hire him.  MSgt H--- made several phone calls and submitted a letter of recommendation.  The group chief interviewed him and discussed his past performance and the 4 EPR in question.  In addition, they conducted a telecom interview with his current commander and superintendent.  Only after all these steps were completed did the commander decide to hire him.  He is currently responsible for standing up the Air Force’s CV-22 Osprey Tilt-rotor maintenance courses filling a MSgt position.

    c.  The impact of the 4 EPR is also evident from his last promotion cycle, causing him to miss master sergeant by 0.39 point.

    d.  Finally, the EPR in question is affecting him financially at the current rate of pay and retirement at the 20 years of service if he chooses to do so!  He falls under the Top Three rule and any future retirement pay is affected by the highest grade held the last three years of service.

It is his intent for the Board to have as much information as possible before ruling on his case.

A copy of applicant’s response is attached 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.	Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of 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 23 January 2003, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

The following documentary evidence was considered:

	Exhibit A.	DD Form 149, dated 31 Jul 02, w/atchs.
	Exhibit B.	Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
	Exhibit C.	Letter, AFPC/DPPPEP, dated 27 Sep 02.
	Exhibit D.	Letter, AFPC/DPPPWB, dated 27 Sep 02.
	Exhibit E.	Letter, AFBCMR, dated 11 Oct 02.
	Exhibit F.	Applicant’s Letter, dated 8 Nov 02.