RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:			DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2003-00772
						INDEX CODE:  111.02
  XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX		COUNSEL:  NONE

  XXX-XX-XXXX				HEARING DESIRED:  NOT INDICATED
_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) rendered for the period of 12 May 2001 through 12 March 2002 be removed from his records.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The report in question should not have been written due to insufficient supervision, creating an inaccurate evaluation of his performance.  

In support of his request, the applicant submits a copy of the Evaluation Reports Appeal Board (ERAB) denial letter dated 10 January 2003, a copy of the contested EPR, a copy of the referral EPR notification, a copy of supporting statements from his raters and additional rater, a copy of his TDY voucher, and his letter concerning his former commander.  The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The Military Personnel Database (MilPDS) indicates the applicant has a Total Active Federal Military Service Date of 26 September 1983.  He has continually served on active duty and has been progressively promoted to the grade of technical sergeant (E-6), effective and with a date of rank of 1 April 1998.  

On 6 November 2001, the applicant received an Article 15 punishment for leaving his appointed place of duty and overindulgence in intoxicating liquor, incapacitating him for proper performance of his duties.  Punishment imposed was a suspended reduction in grade to staff sergeant, forfeiture of $150 pay per month for 2 months, and 14 days extra duty.  

The applicant received a referral EPR for the period 2 May 2001 through 12 March 2002.  The applicant submitted an appeal to the Evaluation Reports Appeal Board (ERAB) in December 2002 requesting his EPR for the period 12 May 2001 through 12 March 2002 be removed from his records.  On 10 January 2003, the ERAB notified the applicant’s military personnel office that his appeal was returned without action because he did not have a statement from his commander supporting the change of reporting official (CRO).  A copy of the ERAB’s decision is included with Exhibit A.

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

	PERIOD ENDING		PROMOTION RECOMMENDATION

    04 Jul 96				5
    01 May 97				5
    01 May 98				5
    01 May 99				5
    01 May 00				5
    01 May 01				5
    12 Mar 02*				2
    29 Dec 02				5

* Contested report 

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPPE recommends denial to void the applicant’s EPR; however, they support changing block 8 on the contested EPR to reflect 263 days of supervision.  

It is the applicant’s contention that he was reassigned to another duty section effective 29 November 2001 and that he was TDY in excess of 30 days during the rating period; therefore, the EPR in question should not have been written due to insufficient supervision.  He has provided letters from both the rater and additional rater supporting the contention that he was reassigned effective 29 November 2001.  Additionally, he has provided documentation supporting his contention that he was TDY in excess of 30 consecutive days.  Using the applicant’s calculations, his calendar days of supervision would be less than 120.  

DPPPE indicates that AFI 36-2406, Officer and Enlisted Evaluation Systems, paragraph 3.2.5.4, indicates that the commander determines the rating chain.  Therefore, the commander would have to certify that the applicant changed raters effective 29 November 2001.  DPPPE also cites AFI 36-2406, table 3.7, rule 16, “If the rater changes as a result of PCS or PCA or an approved change of designated rater and the period of supervision has been at least 120 calendar days (the period of required supervision is reduced to 60 or more calendar days for referral reports), then the reason for the report is change of reporting official (CRO).”  Although the applicant did not submit support from his commander substantiating his contention that he was reassigned on 29 November 2001, if you were to use the supervision timeframe that the applicant alleges took place, you still end up with 90 days of supervision.  That is enough supervision to substantiate the validity of the referral EPR.  Since the applicant did not provide the necessary support from his commander, the only supported correction cited in the applicant’s request for relief is that the number of day’s supervision should be reduced by 52 days to equal 263 days.  The AFPC/DPPPE evaluation is at Exhibit C.

AFPC/DPPPWB defers to DPPPE’s recommendation.  DPPPWB states the first time the applicant’s contested report was used in the promotion process was cycle 02E7 to master sergeant (promotions effective Aug 02 - Jul 03).  The fact that the EPR was a referral rendered the applicant ineligible for promotion consideration.  Should the AFBCMR void the report as requested; he remains ineligible for promotion consideration for cycle 02E7 due to the Article 15 received on 6 November 2001.  The imposed punishment consisted of a suspended reduction in grade to SSgt until 6 November 2001, which rendered the applicant ineligible for promotion consideration.  Should the Board void the report, 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.  The AFPC/DPPPWB evaluation is at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

On 9 May 2003, copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant for review and comment.  As of this date, this office has received no response (Exhibit E). 

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

1.  The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by existing law or regulations.

2.  The application was timely filed.

3.  Sufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of an error or injustice with respect to the number of days of supervision shown on the applicant’s EPR closing 12 March 2002.  It appears that an error occurred at the time the applicant’s EPR was written.  The applicant was TDY for a total of 52 days during the rating period; therefore, the number of days of supervision in block 8, section I, should be adjusted to 263, as was recommended by the office of primary responsibility.  

4.  Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of probable error or injustice warranting favorable consideration of the applicant’s request that the contested report be removed from his records.  The applicant asserts that there was inadequate supervision under the rater and additional rater for an EPR to be rendered; however, we find no persuasive documentation was provided to support this contention.  While the rater and additional rater have made statements to redefine the rating period, no evidence has been provided in the form of a statement by the commander, who was responsible for approving a change of evaluators.  In view of this and in the absence of evidence showing the contested report is an inaccurate depiction of his performance during the referent period, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of the Air Force office of primary responsibility.  Accordingly, his request to set aside his EPR is not favorably considered.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:

The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating to APPLICANT, be corrected to show that the number of days of supervision shown in Section I, Item 8 of the Enlisted Performance Report (AB thru TSgt), AF Form 910, rendered for the period 2 May 2001 through 12 March 2002 was “263,” rather than “315.”

_________________________________________________________________

The following members of the Board considered this application in Executive Session on 18 June 2003, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

	Vice Chair
	Member
	Member

All members voted to correct the records, as recommended, and to deny the applicant’s stated request.  The following documentary evidence for AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2003-00772 was considered:

     Exhibit A.  DD Forms 149, dated 26 Feb 03.
     Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
     Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPE, dated 17 Apr 03.
     Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPWB, dated 24 Apr 03.
     Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 9 May 03.

                                  
                                  Vice Chair

AFBCMR BC-BC-2003-00772

MEMORANDUM FOR THE CHIEF OF STAFF

	Having received and considered the recommendation of the Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records and under the authority of Section 1552, Title 10, United States Code (70A Stat 116), it is directed that:

	The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating to XXXXX, be corrected to show that the number of days of supervision shown in Section I, Item 8 of the Enlisted Performance Report (AB thru TSgt), AF Form 910, rendered for the period 2 May 2001 through 12 March 2002 was “263,” rather than “315.”

                                                                            
                                                                            Director
                                                                            Air Force Review Boards Agency