RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2003-01367
		INDEX NUMBER:  111.00
	XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX	COUNSEL:  None

	XXX-XX-XXXX	HEARING DESIRED:  Yes

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

The Enlisted Performance Reports (EPRs) rendered on him for the periods 31 Jul 00 through 8 Jun 01 and 9 Jun 01 through 15 Apr 02 be voided and removed from his records.

His Air Force Specialty Code, 3S1X1, Military Equal Opportunity (MEO) craftsman, be reinstated.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He wrote the EPR closing out 8 Jun 01 in violation of the Air Force Instruction.  He filed an Inspector General (IG) complaint, but they did not take any action.

His AFSC was withdrawn without merit.  The AF Form 2096 was not completely filled out.  His training report, AF Form 623, does not correlate with the reasons listed on the AF Form 2096 for withdrawing his AFSC.

His supervisor stated in a memorandum that he only decertified him in nonverbal communication.  He did not receive training in the area in which he was decertified before the action was taken.  His supervisor also stated that he did not know if removing his AFSC was the right action.  His supervisor also concurred that the applicant was in a hostile work environment.

The EPR rendered on him for the period 9 Jul 01 through 15 Apr 02 was an automatic referral report due to the withdrawal of his AFSC.  If the Board reinstates his AFSC, this report should be voided and removed from his records.

In support of his appeal the applicant provides copies of his training paperwork, IG complaint, a statement of support from his supervisor, and two statements prepared by co-workers on his duty performance history.

The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant entered active duty in the Air Force on 8 Aug 91.  His AFSC, 3S1X1, was withdrawn on 19 Dec 01 due to substandard duty performance.

A resume of the applicant’s last ten EPRs follows:

	Closeout Date				Overall Rating

	   15 Sep 94					4
	   01 Apr 95					5
	   01 Apr 96					5
	   30 Jul 96					5
	   30 Jul 97					5
	   30 Jul 98					5
	   30 Jul 99					5
	  *30 Jul 00					5
	 **08 Jun 01					3
	 **15 Apr 02					3

*   First Report in career field from which disqualified
**  Contested Reports

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPAC recommends denial of the applicant’s request to reinstate his AFSC.  The documents provided by the applicant do not substantiate that the action to withdraw his AFSC was invalid.  The case was reviewed by an evaluation officer, the Wing Commander, and approved by major command authority.

The complete evaluation is at Exhibit C.

AFPC/DPPPEP strongly recommends denial of the applicant’s request to void his EPRs closing out 8 Jun 01 and 15 Apr 02.

The applicant filed a previous appeal with the Evaluation Reports Appeal Board (ERAB) on the report closing out 8 Jun 01.  He contended that the report was inaccurate based on a lack of training, inconsistent standards, and a personality conflict with his rater.  The ERAB denied his request based on the applicant’s failure to provide evidence to prove his contentions.  The applicant did file an IG complaint.  The IG was unable to render a decision on six of the complaints and referred the complaint to the applicant’s commander for further investigation.  The applicant did not provide any findings to convince the ERAB that the report was erroneous or unjust.

The complete evaluation is at Exhibit D.

AFPC/DPPPWB evaluated the applicant’s request to determine what impact removal of the EPRs would have on his promotion opportunity.  Should the Board decide to void the referral report or both reports, he will be entitled to supplemental promotion consideration beginning with cycle 02E6.  They are unable to determine if he would become a select because he does not have a current test on file.

The complete evaluation is at Exhibit E.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant responded to the Air Force evaluations with a letter with attachments and also provided a CD-ROM labeled “EPR copy made 30 July 03.”  However a copy of an EPR was not found on the CD-ROM.  The CD-ROM contained three folders labeled “Charles Stuff,” “MEO Reports,” and “My Documents.”  Each folder contained numerous files, which did not present any obvious connection to the applicant’s case.

In his letter, the applicant discusses the conclusions reached by an evaluation officer who reviewed the AFSC withdrawal action against him.  However, the copy of the report he provided did not contain the sections that he references.  The applicant asserts that his 8 Jun 01 and 15 Apr 02 EPRs, his Human Relation Critiques, and his Unit Climate Assessment critiques all prove that he did not have substandard duty performance.  The applicant references the ratings given him on the EPR closing out 15 Apr 02, which was received after he was disqualified, in Section III as evidence of his satisfactory duty performance.

The applicant also believes that his AFSC should be reinstated based on the findings of the Command IG that the AF Form 2096 was not completely filled out and that the package contained performance feedbacks that were not released by him.  The applicant states that the IG also confirmed that his supervisor withdrew the AF Form 2096.  Although the commander could still proceed with the action, he failed to follow the procedures outlined in AFI 36-2101.  The applicant states that there is still an open investigation regarding deficiencies in the preparation of the 2096.  The applicant indicates that the IG found problems concerning his training.  This is important he asserts because the first step in withdrawing an AFSC is to review the individual’s record for adequate training.  The applicant also questions one of the areas that he was decertified in.

The applicant’s complete response, with attachments, is at Exhibit G.

_________________________________________________________________

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 considering the complete evidence of record, we are not persuaded that the commander’s decision to remove the applicant’s AFSC was either arbitrary or capricious and that the applicant’s EPR closing 8 Jun 01 was accomplished in violation of Air Force directives.  Consequently, there are no grounds to void the EPR closing 15 Apr 02.  We note that several inquiries by the inspector general (IG) failed to substantiate the applicant’s assertions.  We also found the independent evaluation of the AFSC withdrawal action accomplished by SMSgt B______ to be persuasive.  While noting that there were problems with the applicant’s training program, nonetheless, he recommended that the applicant’s AFSC be withdrawn.  Central to his recommendation were the applicant’s statements that he was not happy in the MEO career field and “just doesn’t believe in the program or what it teaches.”  As pointed out, MEO personnel may at times find themselves confronted with highly emotional, sensitive issues that run counter to their own beliefs and values, but must still be handled in an objective, rational manner.  It appears that the applicant’s rating chain did not believe he possessed the ability to do this.  Therefore, we do not find a compelling basis to grant the relief requested in this application.

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 issues 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 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-2003-01367 in Executive Session on 4 September 2003, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 11 Apr 03, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPPAC, dated 5 Jun 03.
    Exhibit D.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPPPEP, dated 16 Jun 03.
    Exhibit E.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPPPWB, dated 26 Jun 03.
    Exhibit F.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 11 Jul 03.
    Exhibit G.  Letter, Applicant, dated 3 Aug 03, w/atchs.