RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2003-00839
				INDEX CODE:  111.02

	APPLICANT	COUNSEL:  None

	SSN		HEARING DESIRED:  None

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

The Enlisted  Performance  Report (EPR)  rendered for the period 10 June 1998 through 15 January 2000 be removed from his records.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The reason his rater and indorser gave him for not giving him an overall rating of “5” was he failed his career development course (CDC) before his EPR closed out.

He was unjustly rated because the reason his rater and indorser gave was untrue because he did not take his test until 20 March 2000 and his EPR closed out on 15 January 2000.

Applicant's complete submission, with attachments, is attached at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant is currently serving in the Regular Air Force in the grade of senior airman (SrA).

The applicant appealed the contested report under the provisions of AFI 36-2401, Correcting Officer and Enlisted Evaluations Reports.  The Evaluation Reports Appeal Board (ERAB) denied his request.  No documentation was submitted indicating the rating chain supported removal of the EPR or that their assessment was inaccurate.

The applicant’s EPR profile reflects the following:

			PERIOD ENDING 			OVERALL EVALUATION

			 *15 Jan 00					4
			  15 Jan 01					5
			  29 Oct 01					5
			  29 Oct 02					5

* Contested report.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR STAFF EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPPE states the applicant submitted an appeal to the ERAB and the ERAB denied his request stating the applicant did not submit evidence to substantiate his request to have the report removed from his records.

The applicant contends his rating chain gave him a “4” promotion recommendation due to his non-completion of his career development course.  The additional rater stated in an e-mail that the applicant received the “4” because he failed his first CDC test.  After careful review DPPPE states it is clear that his additional rater would not have known about the CDC failure as he signed the EPR on 6 February 2000 and the scorecard for his failure was dated 5 April 2000.  The applicant did not take the examination until 20 March 2000.  However, it is reasonable to believe that three years after the fact, the additional rater was unable to provide an exact explanation as to why he rated the applicant at a “4.”  DPPPE further states the applicant has not provided any documentation from either the rater or unit commander supporting his contention that the EPR was unjust.

Furthermore, Air Force policy is that an evaluation report is accurate as written when it becomes a matter of record.  The applicant failed to substantiate his allegations and they find no errors or injustices cited in the EPR.  They recommend the applicant’s request to have the EPR voided be denied.

A complete copy of their evaluation is attached at Exhibit C.

AFPC/DPPPWB states based on the applicant’s date of rank (DOR) to senior airman, he was considered for promotion to staff sergeant (SSgt) twice.  The first time he was considered was in cycle 01E5.  His total score was 228.24 and the score required for promotion in his Air Force Specialty Code (AFSC) was 242.14.  He was considered again for promotion in cycle 02E5.  The score required for promotion was 244.79 and his score was 240.74.  DPPPWB further states if the AFBCMR grants the applicant’s request, providing he is otherwise eligible, he would be entitled 
to supplemental promotion consideration beginning with cycle 01E5.  However, it would serve no useful purpose to provide the applicant with supplemental consideration for this cycle, because he could not be selected.  He missed selection for the cycle by 13.9 points and would only gain 12.79 points if this report were removed.  However, the applicant would become a select for the cycle 02E5 pending favorable data verification and the recommendation from his commander.  AFPC/DPPPWB defers to the recommendation of AFPC/DPPPE (Exhibit D).

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR STAFF EVALUATION:

Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on 9 May 2003, for review and response.  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 error or injustice.  After a thorough review of the evidence of record and applicant’s submission, we are unpersuaded that relief should be granted.  Applicant’s contentions are duly noted; however, we do not find these assertions, in and by themselves, sufficiently persuasive to override the rationale provided by the offices of the Air Force.  The applicant did not provide sufficient evidence as to why the contested report was not an accurate reflection of his performance.  The e-mail statement from the additional rater is duly noted; however, it would appear the additional rater did not accurately remember the circumstances of the situation.  In this regard, the contested report closed out prior to the applicant completing his CDCs.  Therefore, it does not appear that this was the reason for the overall “4” rating.  Further, we note the applicant did not provide documentation from his rater to support his contention that the report was inaccurate or unjust.  In accordance with Air Force policy an evaluation report is accurate as written when it becomes a matter or record.  We therefore adopt the Air Force's rationale expressed as the basis for our decision that the applicant has failed to sustain his burden that he has suffered either an error or an injustice.  Hence, 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 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-2003-00839 in Executive Session on 10 June 2003, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

              Panel Chair
              Member
              Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

	Exhibit A.	DD Form 149, dated 10 Mar 03, w/atchs.
	Exhibit B.	Enlisted Performance Reports.
	Exhibit C.	Letter, AFPC/DPPPE, dated 11 Apr 03.
	Exhibit D.	Letter, AFPC/DPPPWB, dated 17 Apr 03.
	Exhibit E.	Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 9 May 03.

				
				Panel Chair