RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  02-03566
		INDEX CODE:  111.02

		COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

The Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) rendered for the period 12 July 1999 through 11 July 2000 be declared void and removed from his records.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The EPR is biased and administered as a reprisal by the rater for reasons that were not duty related.  The rater failed to provide verbal/written feedback prior to closeout of the EPR indicating that he was not progressing or performing up to her standards.  The rater had 160 days to provide sufficient documentation warranting such a report.  The rater said that he abused his position to correct Air Force members violating dress and appearance standards.  The EPR is also the result of unfair treatment by the rater.

In support of the appeal, applicant submits a copy of his mid-term performance feedback, a copy of the contested EPR with appeal, a copy of his training records, copies of the instructor observations, and six character references.  Applicant's complete submission 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                 PROMOTION RECOMMENDATION

         22 Jan 96				    5
         29 Sep 96				    4
         29 Sep 97				    5
         29 Sep 98				    5
         11 Jul 99				    5
        *11 Jul 00				    4
         30 Dec 00				    5
         30 Dec 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/DPPPE states that although there is no direct correlation between the performance feedback and the final EPR, it is a tool that raters use to identify improvement areas and shortcomings, along with identifying positive aspects of their performance.  In reviewing the performance feedback, it is clear that the rater felt the applicant required little improvement on the rated area; however, it is also quite evident that the applicant did require focus in some areas due to previous problems.  Specifically identified are the areas of taking time off of work, leave related issues, and financial issues.  Additionally, the rater pointed out several areas in which the applicant required improvement (i.e., initiative, fostering teamwork, writing and speaking skills, etc.).  Furthermore, in accordance with (IAW) AFI 36-2406, paragraph 2.3, after receiving the midterm feedback identifying these improvement areas, the applicant could have requested an additional performance feedback closer to the EPR close-out date to get an idea of how well he actually improved within these areas.

In summary, Air Force policy is that an evaluation report is accurate as written when it becomes a matter of record.  There are no errors or injustices cited in the contested report.  Therefore, they recommend denial of applicant’s request.

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

AFPC/DPPPWB states that based on the applicant’s date of rank to technical sergeant, the first time the contested report will be used in the promotion process is cycle 03E7 to master sergeant (promotions effective August 2003 - July 2004).  Should the AFBCMR void the report as requested, providing he is otherwise eligible, the applicant will be entitled to supplemental consideration beginning with cycle 03E7 providing he is not selected during the initial selection process.  However, if favorable results are received by 1 May 2003, no supplemental consideration would be required as there would be sufficient time to update the promotion file.  Promotions for this cycle will be accomplished during the May/June 2003 timeframe.

They defer to the recommendation of AFPC/DPPPE regarding the applicant’s request to have the contested report removed.

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

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

On 17 January 2003, 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 error or injustice.  After reviewing all the evidence provided, we are unpersuaded that the contested report is an inaccurate depiction of the applicant’s performance for the period in question.  In the rating process, each evaluator is required to assess a ratee’s performance, honestly and to the best of their ability.  The applicant asserts that the rater was biased, that the report was a form of reprisal, and that the rater abused her position.  However, he has provided no substantiation for these serious allegations of inappropriate behavior on the part of his rater.  In an independent review, the squadron commander concurred with the rater’s assessments.  We have noted the statements provided in support of the applicant’s appeal.  While laudatory of the applicant’s character and performance, there is no indication that these individuals had access to the information available to the applicant’s rating chain or that they were in positions to observe his day-to-day duty performance during the period covered by the report.  In view of the above and in the absence of documentary evidence by the applicant which would lead us to believe that his evaluators abused their discretionary authority, that the ratings on the contested report were based on inappropriate considerations or that the report is technically flawed, we have no basis on which to favorably consider his request that the report be removed from his records.

_________________________________________________________________

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 5 March 2003, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

		Panel Chair
		Member
		Member

The following documentary evidence was considered in connection with AFBCMR Docket No. 02-03566:

	Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 31 Oct 02, w/atchs.
	Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
	Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPE, dated 19 Dec 02.
	Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPWB, 6 Jan 03.
	Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 17 Jan 03.