RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC2003-01161

		COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED: YES

__________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

The Enlisted Performance Report, (EPR), rendered for the period 13 May 1999 through 25 January 2000, be declared void and removed from his records.
___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

Applicant states that no documented evidence exists that his performance had been anything less than exceptional.  After being briefed there were no repercussions from TMI/Open Space Assessment, the markdowns on the contested report were a direct result of it.  He also believes that the additional rater had a personality conflict with him.

In support of his appeal, applicant has provided a personal statement, a copy of his latest performance report and a copy of his appeal package filed under AFI 36-2401.  In addition he has provided a copy of his score sheet for promotion to the grade of chief master sergeant for cycle 02E9.

Applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.
___________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant is currently serving in the Regular Air Force in the grade of senior master sergeant.

He applied under the provision of AFI 36-2401 to have the contested EPR removed from his records; however, the Evaluation Reports Appeal Board (ERAB) denied his request.

With the exception of the contested EPR closing 25 January 2000, applicant’s performance report from 1992 reflect an overall rating of “5”.  The rater on the contested report rated the applicant a “5”, the rater’s rater downgraded the report to a “4” and the indorser concurred with the rater’s rater.

___________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPPEP reviewed this application and indicates that the applicant did not provide any documentation from his rating chain indicating that they were wrongfully influenced by the results from the TMI/Open Space assessment.  Additionally, the applicant states that lack of feedback was an additional factor in his less than stellar evaluation.  The contested report reflects that the applicant did receive feedback.  He states that this is false; however, he has failed to provide documentation to support his allegation.  He has alleged several instances of biased treatment from his rating chain; however, he again has failed to support or substantiate any of them.  Therefore, DPPPEP recommends denial of his application.

AFPC/DPPPEP complete evaluation is at Exhibit C.

AFPC/DPPPWB also reviewed this application and indicated that should the Board remove the report as requested, applicant would be entitled to supplemental consideration beginning with cycle 00E9.

AFPC/DPPPWB complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit D.

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant reviewed the Air Force evaluations and stated that he was selected as the HQ USAF SNCO of the Year for 2002.  He has done all that he can do.  It’s obvious that the rater and the rater’s rater were in disagreement on the EPR.  Why is that?  Obviously, something is wrong with this picture!  His records were outstanding before and after the bad EPR.  If something seems array, that's because it is.  If the Air Force can’t see this and he is passed over for promotion to chief this time, he will retire from the Air Force.  

He apologizes if this letter seems a bit bitter, but he knows in his heart he was treated unfairly and had been told so by many people whom he worked with in that organization

Applicant’s complete response is at Exhibit F.

___________________________________________________________________

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 probable error or injustice.  After reviewing all of the evidence provided, 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 the rater’s rater's assessment of his duty performance was less than exceptional.  However, other than his own assertions, we have seen no evidence by the applicant that would lead us to believe the rater's rater abused his discretionary authority, that the rating was based on inappropriate considerations, or that the report was technically flawed.  Therefore, in the absence of such evidence, the applicant's request is not favorably considered

4.	The applicant's case is adequately documented and it has not been shown that a personal appearance with or without counsel will materially add to our understanding of the issue involved.  Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorably considered.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:

The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of a 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 Docket Number BC-2003-01161 in Executive Session on 21 August 2003, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

			Panel Chair
			Member
			Member

	Exhibit A.	DD Form 149, dated 28 Mar 03, w/atchs.
	Exhibit B.	Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
	Exhibit C.	Letter, AFPC/DPPPEP, dated 28 May 03.
	Exhibit D.	Letter, AFPC/DPPPWB, dated 6 Jun 03.
	Exhibit E.	Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 27 Jun 03
	Exhibit F.	Applicant’s Response, dated 23 Jul 03.

	
	Panel Chair