RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2003-00823
		INDEX CODE:  111.02

		COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His Enlisted Performance Report (EPR), rendered for the period 16 Feb 02 through 17 Nov 02, be declared void and removed from his records; and, that his Promotion Sequence Number (PSN) be reinstated.
_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The contested report was written with bias and prejudice, without due process and the required documentation.  The contested report was written in reaction to a former civilian’s intent to file an EEOC complaint against the Education Services Office.

In support of his request, the applicant submits copies of the contested referral report, his response to the referral report, two statements of support, performance feedback worksheets, EPRs closing 20 Apr 01 and 15 Feb 02, and the Evaluation Reports Appeal Board (ERAB) decision.  The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant’s Total Active Federal Military Service Date (TAFMSD) is 5 Apr 83.  He is currently serving on active duty in the grade of technical sergeant (E-6), with an effective date and date of rank of 1 Sep 99.  The following is a resume of his EPR ratings subsequent to his promotion to that grade.

		Period Ending	Evaluation

		   20 Apr 00	5 - Immediate Promotion
		   20 Apr 01	5
		   15 Feb 02	4 - Ready for Promotion
		*  17 Nov 02	3 - Consider for Promotion

* Contested referral report

A similar appeal by the applicant, under Air Force Instruction (AFI) 36-2401, was considered and denied by the Evaluation Report Appeal Board (ERAB) on 21 Feb 03.
_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

HQ AFPC/DPPPE recommends the applicant’s request to void his EPR, closing 17 Nov 02, be denied.  DPPPE states that the applicant has incorrectly assumed that there must be some sort of required formal documentation completed prior to rendering a referral evaluation.  The applicant has not provided evidence that would substantiate his allegations that his rater was biased towards him.  Although the applicant claims there was no formal documentation to warrant the referral report, he has provided copies of formal feedback he received during the reporting period clearly identifying concerns with his performance in fostering teamwork (specifically with civilians).  After reviewing the rater’s referral report and the applicant’s rebuttal, the additional rater and commander concurred with the referral EPR as written.  The HQ AFPC/DPPPE evaluation is at Exhibit C.

HQ AFPC/DPPPWB defers to the recommendation of HQ AFPC/DPPPE regarding the removal of the contested EPR.  With respect to the issue of supplemental promotion, DPPPE states that the applicant was tentatively selected for promotion to the grade of master sergeant (E-7) during cycle 02E7, promotions effective Aug 02 - Jul 03.  When the applicant received the referral EPR, it automatically cancelled his promotion for cycle 02E7 and also rendered him ineligible for cycle 03E7.  Individuals regain their promotion eligibility only after receiving an EPR with a rating of “3” or higher, that is not a referral, and closes out on or before the Promotion Eligibility Cutoff Date (PECD) for the next cycle.  Should the Board void the report as requested, providing he is otherwise eligible, the applicant’s promotion to E-7 could be reinstated, with an effective date and date of rank of 1 Apr 03.  The HQ AFPC/DPPPWB evaluation is at Exhibit D.
_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS:

Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to applicant on 2 May 03 for review and response.  As of this date, no response has been received by this office (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.  Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of error or injustice.  After a thorough review of the evidence of record and applicant’s submission, we are unpersuaded that the contested EPR should be removed from his record.  We have noted the documents provided with the applicant’s submission.  However, they do not, in our opinion, support a finding that the evaluators were unable to render unbiased evaluations of the applicant’s performance or that the ratings on the contested report were based on factors other than applicant’s duty performance during the contested rating period.  Evaluators are required to assess a ratee’s performance, honestly and to the best of their ability, based on their observance of an individual’s performance.  Additionally, we found no evidence that the contested report was prepared contrary to the governing Air Force Instruction.  In view of the foregoing and absent statements from his rating chain, we agree with the comments and recommendation of the appropriate Air Force office (HQ AFPC/DPPPE).  Therefore, in the absence of sufficient 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 this application in Executive Session on 8 July 2003, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

	            Panel Chair
	            Member
	            Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 5 Mar 03, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPPE, dated 17 Apr 03.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPPWB, dated 24 Apr 03.
   Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 2 May 03.

                                   
                                   Panel Chair