RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2003-00117
		INDEX CODE:  111.05

		COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

The Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) rendered for the period 16 January 1999 to 15 January 2000, be declared void.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The EPR closing 15 January 2000 is considered a non-promotable report and will prevent him from further promotion opportunities.  The EPR was rated an overall “4” which indicates, “ready for promotion,” and sections 5 and 6 of the EPR provide promotion comments.

In support of his appeal, the applicant provided the ERAB Decision dated 28 June 2001, AF Form 948 Application for Correction/Removal of Evaluation Reports, the EPR closing 15 January 2000, and other documentation.

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 master sergeant, with an effective date of rank (DOR) of 1 November 2000.

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 1996 reflects the following:

	PERIOD ENDING	EVALUATION OF POTENTIAL

		17 Aug 96		5
	   17 Aug 97		5
		17 Aug 98		5
		15 Jan 99		5
		14 Dec 00		5
	 * 15 Jan 00		4 (Referral EPR)
		14 Dec 01		5
		14 Dec 02		5

* Contested report

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPPE recommended denial.  They indicated that the applicant became ineligible for promotion (due to this referral EPR) after he had tested and received his scores.  It is the applicant’s contention that had he not received a referral EPR (causing his ineligibility for promotion), he would have scored high enough to be promoted to the next higher grade.  The ERAB was accurate in their evaluation.  The applicant has failed to provide any evidence that the referral comment in his 15 January 2000 EPR was inaccurate.  In fact, the applicant (in his rebuttal to the referral EPR) acknowledges that he “made a mistake” during the reporting period.  Air Force policy is that an evaluation report is accurate as written when it becomes a matter of record.  The applicant has failed to provide any evidence that the 15 January 2000 EPR was inaccurate.

The evaluation is at Exhibit C.

AFPC/DPPPWB deferred to the recommendation of AFPC/DPPPE.  The first cycle the contested report would normally have been considered was the 00E7 cycle (promotions effective August 2000 - July 2001).  However, the fact that the EPR was a referral rendered him ineligible for promotion consideration in accordance with AFI 36-2502, Table 1.1, Rule 22.  Should the AFBCMR grant the applicant’s request to void the EPR, he would be entitled to supplemental consideration beginning with cycle 00E7 provided he is otherwise eligible and recommended by the commander.  As a matter of information, the applicant was selected for promotion to MSgt during cycle 02E7 with a date of rank of 1 November 2002.

The evaluation is at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

On 4 April 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 probable error or injustice.  After thoroughly reviewing the evidence of record we are not persuaded that the contested report should be declared void and removed from his records.  We note that the applicant has not submitted any supporting documentation from the rating chain and has failed to provide evidence showing that the report was not an accurate assessment as rendered.  While we cannot determine what was the nature of the applicant’s dereliction of duty. It was apparently sufficiently significant that the rating chain determined it should be reflected on the contested EPR.  Furthermore, the applicant readily acknowledges that he made a mistake during the rating period.  The supporting statements are duly noted; however, the authors of these statements were not tasked with assessing the applicant’s duty performance during the contested time period.  We therefore agree with the opinions and recommendations 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.

________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:

The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of an error or an 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 BC-2003-00117 in Executive Session on 12 June 2003, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

The following documentary evidence was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 30 December 2002, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPE, dated 20 March 2003.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPWB, dated 27 March 2003.
   Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 4 April 2003.