RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2003-03017
				INDEX CODE:  111.02

				COUNSEL:  None

				HEARING DESIRED:  Yes

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

The Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) rendered for the period 6 March 2000 through 5 March 2001 be removed from his records.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

His signature was forged on his notification feedback letter.  His record is based on falsified US Air Force documents to which his signature was forged.  He was not provided feedback sessions by his rater/supervisor throughout the period of supervision. His rater’s comments are inconsistent with the evaluation of his performance ratings.  He was singled out for the treatment, which was inconsistent with the treatment of his peers.  This injustice resulted in his not being allowed to retrain into another career field within the Air Force Reserves.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant enlisted in Regular Air Force on 8 October 1993 for a period of four years.  The applicant reenlisted in the Air Force on 29 November 1996 for a period of four years.

On 17 April 2001, the applicant filed an AF Form 1168 (Statement of Suspect/Witness/Complaint) contending that his signature was forged on a notification feedback letter for the EPR closing 5 March 2001.  The results of the official investigation were not provided.

The applicant was honorably discharged on 28 April 2001.  He served 7 years, 6 months and 28 days of active service.

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) returned the applicant’s appeal without action because he was no longer on active duty or a participating reservist.

The applicant’s EPR profile reflects the following:

			PERIOD ENDING 			OVERALL EVALUATION

			   7 Jun 95					5
			  13 Apr 96					5
			  13 Apr 97					5
			   5 Mar 98					5
			   5 Mar 99					5
			   5 Mar 00					5
			  *5 Mar 01					4

* Contested report.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR STAFF EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPPEP states the applicant’s contention that his performance feedback notification was signed by his rater and his signature was forged was not substantiated by evidence.  They further state they are not handwriting experts and cannot provide an official analysis, however, they do agree that the signatures on the feedback notification appear to be different than the other documents that were signed by the applicant and rater.  Without an official investigation, the validity of the performance feedback document is questionable.  The applicant further alleged unfair treatment based on the fact that no formal investigation occurred regarding the “forgery.”  The applicant’s specialty was in security forces and he should have been aware of the procedures required to complete an official inquiry at that time; and there is no evidence that an investigation was completed.  The applicant has not provided any evidence to support his contention that he was not provided a feedback session on 21 October 2000.  Apparently, the rater’s records indicated the feedback was accomplished on 21 October 2000, which is what was annotated on the report.  Furthermore, if neither feedback session took place, that alone does not mean the actual assessment of the applicant’s performance is not accurate.  

The applicant further stated that the ratings and the comments do not match on the report.  The ratings on a report are marked for the servicemember’s performance through the entire rating period as a whole.  The comments are used to report specific events that the servicemember may have excelled in, however, this does not necessarily mean the servicemember excelled the entire reporting period.  Furthermore, the report is the rating chain’s assessment--not the applicant’s.

AFPC/DPPPEP further states the applicant’s supervisory chain has not provided any documentation indicating an injustice has occurred.  The validity of the document the applicant alleges to have been forged cannot be verified and the applicant has not provided any evidence to substantiate the report was not an accurate of assessment of his performance during the rating period.

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

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR STAFF EVALUATION:

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 15 November 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.	Sufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of error or injustice warranting removal of the contested report.  After reviewing the available evidence, the Board believes the applicant’s and the rater’s signatures on the feedback notice and contested report are different than other documents they signed.  Without official documentation attesting to the validity of the signatures, some doubt exists as to accuracy and fairness of the contested report.   In view of the above findings, we believe that any doubt should be resolved in the applicant’s favor by removing the contested report from his records.  Accordingly, we recommend that the applicant’s records be corrected as indicated below. 

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT:

The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating to APPLICANT be corrected to show that the AF Form 910, Enlisted Performance Report, rendered for the period 6 March 2000 through 5 March 2001, be declared void and removed from his records. 

_________________________________________________________________

The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2003-03017 in Executive Session on 13 January 2004, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

All members voted to correct the records, as recommended.  The following documentary evidence was considered:

	Exhibit A.	DD Form 149, dated 28 Aug 03, w/atchs.
	Exhibit B.	Applicant's Enlisted Performance Reports.
	Exhibit C.	Letter, AFPC/DPPPEP, dated 6 Nov 03.
	Exhibit D.	Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 15 Nov 03.

				

AFBCMR BC- BC-2003-03017
INDEX CODE:  111.02

MEMORANDUM FOR THE CHIEF OF STAFF

	Having received and considered the recommendation of the Air Force Board for Correction for 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                 , be corrected to show that the AF Form 910, Enlisted Performance Report, rendered for the period 6 March 2000 through 5 March 2001, be and hereby is, declared void and removed from his records.