RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2003-00373
		INDEX CODE:  111.02
		COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) rendered for the period 2 Dec 99 through 1 Dec 00, be declared void and removed from his records.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The report is biased and based entirely on an isolated incident.  The initial report was generated as a command-directed report with a closeout date of 26 Sep 00 as a result of nonjudicial punishment he was receiving.  He was served the referral report notice on 20 Dec 00 and submitted his response on 3 Jan 01.  In February 2001, he received an altered version of the report signed on 5 Feb 01 with a changed closeout date of 1 Dec 00.  The EPR was also changed from a command-directed report to an annual report.  AFI 36-3406, paragraph 3.9.2., states "...if after a referral, a subsequent evaluator upgrades the rating and/or invalidates the referral comments, the nonconcur block is marked and comments are made in support of the disagreement in the ratings of comments.  The report is no longer considered referral; however, retain original referral correspondence with the report.  This was not done."  Although the Air Force states that a report is a working document, it also states that if a change is made after being served, the ratee must be given an additional ten days to respond and comments provided be attached to the report.  The Evaluation Reports Appeals Board (ERAB) returned his first appeal requesting additional support for his case.  His second appeal was denied indicating that the support he provided was insufficient.   

During the particular time period, his unit had four court-martials going on for sexual misconduct.  Applicant believes that because of this, it did not look good for him to have any accusations going on at the time and that the letter of reprimand he received for not portraying a positive image should have been enough.  

In support of his request, applicant provided documentation associated with his ERAB appeal.  His complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Data extracted from the personnel data system reflects that the applicant contracted his initial enlistment in the Regular Air Force on 28 Jul 88 and has been progressively promoted to the grade of staff sergeant, having assumed that grade effective and with a date of rank of 1 Jan 97.

On 28 Sep 00, the applicant was notified by his commander of his intent to recommend nonjudicial punishment under Article 15 of the UCMJ for engaging in an unprofessional relationship with a female while married to someone other than that female.  He was advised of his rights in this matter and acknowledged receipt of the notification on 10 Oct 00.  After consulting counsel, the applicant waived his right to demand trial by court-martial, accepted Article 15 proceedings, and provided a written and oral presentation to his commander.  On 11 Oct 00, after consideration of all the facts, his commander determined that he committed one or more of the offenses alleged and imposed punishment on the applicant.  He received a suspended reduction to the grade of senior airman and was reprimanded.  The applicant did not appeal his punishment.

The following is a resume of the applicant's recent EPR profile:

	PERIOD ENDING	PROMOTION RECOMMENDATION

		31 Dec 02		5
		30 Nov 01		5
		01 Dec 00*		3
		01 Dec 99		5
		17 Jul 99		5
		17 Jul 98		4
		10 Nov 97		4
		10 Nov 96		4
* - Contested Report

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPPE recommends denial.  DPPPE states that in accordance with AFI 36-2406, EPRs become a matter of record when the original is filed in the Unit Personnel Record Group (UPRG).  Evaluation reports are work copies and evaluators may correct or redo them until the reports become a matter of record. Furthermore, Table 3.2., states "Evaluators should discuss disagreements when preparing reports.  Prior evaluators are first given an opportunity to change the evaluation; however, they will not change their evaluation just to satisfy the evaluator who disagrees."  In the applicant's case the additional rater disagreed with the rater and chose to discuss his disagreement with the rater.  The rater then chose to rewrite the EPR as a non-referral.  It is the rating chain's responsibility to assess and document what the ratee did, how well he did it, and the ratee's potential based on that performance.  The performance is recorded on the EPR, along with a valid and realistic recommendation for promotion.  There were no errors cited in this EPR.  The applicant has failed to prove that the documented performance on his contested EPR was inaccurate.  The DPPPE evaluation is at Exhibit C.  

AFPC/DPPPWB recommends denial.  DPPPWB states that the referral report in question was actually a working copy that closed out 26 Sep 00, but never made it to his records.  That report was reaccomplished with a closeout date of 1 Dec 00, as a nonreferral report, and was placed into his official record.  The first time the contested report would normally have been considered in the promotion process was cycle 01E6.  However, on 11 Oct 00, the applicant received an Article 15 with a suspended reduction which rendered him ineligible for promotion consideration.  Should the Board decide to remove the report, he would become a select for the 02E6 cycle pending a favorable data verification and recommendation of the commander.  The DPPPWB evaluation is at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on 14 Mar 03 for review and comment within 30 days.  As of this date, this office has received no response.

_________________________________________________________________

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 an error or injustice that would warrant removal of the contested report.  Applicant contends that undue emphasis on an isolated incident and improper processing procedures, resulted in an unfairly written performance report.  His contentions are duly noted; however, we do not find his uncorroborated assertions, in and by themselves, sufficiently persuasive to override the evidence of record and the rationale provided by the Air Force.  We are not convinced by the evidence he provided in support of his appeal, that the contested report is not a true and accurate assessment of his performance during the specified time period or that the report was not processed in accordance with regulations in effect at the time.  Therefore, we agree with the opinions and recommendation of the Air Force offices of primary responsibility and adopt their rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice.  In the absence of persuasive 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 AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2003-00373 in Executive Session on 3 Jun 03, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

	Panel Chair
	Member
	Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 22 Jan 03, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPE, dated 19 Feb 03.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPWB, dated 3 Mar 03.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 14 Mar 03.

                                   
                                   Panel Chair