RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC 2003-00734
		INDEX CODE:  111.05

		COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED: NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

The Airman Performance Report (APR) rendered for the period 2 June 1977 through 1 June 1978 be declared void and he be provided supplemental promotion consideration to the grade of technical sergeant.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The APR in question placed undue emphasis on an isolated event.  Inappropriate emphasis should not be given to isolated instances of poor performance or behavior.  The significance of the event and its frequency should have been weighed in assessing how it represented total performance.

He also states that he did not learn until recently that the referral report cost him a promotion to technical sergeant.  He did not fully understand the time constraints involved with applications for correction to military records.  The evidence submitted clearly shows the decision to write a referral performance report was based upon an isolated incident and then not properly investigated by trained and qualified investigators.  The evidence was destroyed and he was told to accept the report as is, or face administrative separation from the service.  Under these circumstances, he signed the report and ceased any and all efforts to defend himself.  He firmly believes the amount of years does not change the fact that justice was not served in his case.

In support of his appeal, he has provided a copy of the contested report and statements from individuals commenting on the circumstances surrounding the incident in question.  His complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 16 June 1960, applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force.  On 1 July 1980, he retired in the grade of staff sergeant for length of service.

Applicant’s performance reports rendered in the grade of staff sergeant reflect the following ratings:

              PERIOD ENDING              OVERALL RATING

              24 Aug 1971                      9
              29 Feb 1972                      7
              28 Feb 1973                      8
              15 Jun 1973                      8
               9 Nov 1973                      6
               1 Oct 1974                      9
               1 Jun 1975                      8
               1 Jun 1976                      8
               1 Jun 1977                      8
             * 1 Jun 1978                      7 (Referral)
              25 Apr 1979                      8
              25 Apr 1980                      7

* Contested APR

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPPEP recommends denial.  DPPPEP states that the applicant acknowledges that while assigned to Barksdale AFB, LA, he was involved in three minor incidents.  He has provided numerous supporting memorandums attesting to his outstanding duty performance; however, the rating chain was in the best position to observe and document duty performance to include the significance and frequency of the misconduct.  There were no errors cited in this APR.  The applicant has failed to prove that the documented performance on the contested report was inaccurate.  While some of the supporting documentation suggests proper procedures were not followed during the investigation of the accident, it appears that the issue was addressed and apparently resolved at that time.  

DPPPEP states that some twenty-four years have elapsed since this report was rendered and the documentation provided by the applicant strongly suggests any issues or concerns by the applicant were addressed and resolved.  Based on the timeframe of this request, DPPPEP cannot provide any additional response/documentation other than what the applicant himself has provided (again, they strongly suggests any issues were resolved twenty-four years ago when the report was rendered).

The DPPPEP evaluation is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

AFPC/DPPPWB also reviewed this application and indicated that if the Board removes the contested report, applicant would be entitled to supplemental promotion consideration; however, since promotion history files are only maintained for a period of 10 years, there is no way to go back 23 years and determine if he would have been selected for promotion.

The DPPPWB evaluation is at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 10 June 2003, for review and comment 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 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 error or injustice.  After reviewing the evidence provided in support of his appeal, we are not persuaded that the contested report is an inaccurate depiction of the applicant's performance and demonstrated potential 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.  In judging the merits of this case, we took note of the applicant's contention that undue emphasis was placed on an isolated incident.  However, other than his own assertions, we have seen no evidence which would lead us to believe that the rating was based on inappropriate considerations, the rater abused his discretionary authority, or that the report was technically flawed.  Accordingly, since we do find that removal of his performance report is appropriate, favorable consideration of his request for supplemental promotion to technical sergeant is not warranted.  Therefore, in the absence of such evidence, we find no basis upon which to favorably consider the applicant's request.

_________________________________________________________________

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-2003-00734 in Executive Session on 29 Jan 03, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

	Panel Chair
	Member
	Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 24 Feb 03, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPEP, dated 23 May 03.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPCDPPPWB, dated 2 Jun 03.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 10 Jun 03.

                                   
                                   Panel Chair