RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2003-03357
		INDEX CODE:  111.05

		COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

The Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) rendered for the period 8 June 2002 through 3 February 2003, be declared void.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The contested EPR is unjust.  She was given an initial feedback but never received a midterm.  She had no indication of substandard performance.  She received promotion Below-the-Zone during this rating period.  The comments in the EPR indicate an expert and superb performer.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant is currently serving in the Regular Air Force in the grade of senior airman, with an effective date of rank (DOR) of 2 June 2002.

EPR profile since 2000 reflects the following:

	PERIOD ENDING	EVALUATION OF POTENTIAL

	    7 Jun 02		5
	  * 3 Feb 03		4

* Contested report

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPPE recommends denial.  They indicated there is no documentation from the rating chain stating the assessment of the report was incorrect.  While the applicant was promoted to senior airman Below-the-Zone, it was very early in the contested reporting period and under a different rating chain.  The applicant’s effective date of promotion was 2 June 2002 and the report did not close out until some eight months later on 3 February 2003.  The fact that an individual is promoted during a reporting period does not guarantee any specific rating when the report closes-out.  Also, as with any change in reporting officials, the new rater had different expectations of the applicant and rated her accordingly.  A letter of support was provided from the applicant’s current first sergeant, which is commendable; however, he was not in applicant’s rating chain when the report was rendered.  At the time the report closed-out, the applicant’s first sergeant at that time would have had the opportunity to review the report for quality control reasons.  That first sergeant has not been heard from.  Further, both the additional rater and commander who indorsed and concurred with the report also have not been heard from with any indication their initial assessment was inaccurate.  Applicant’s initial feedback provided clearly indicates there was room for improvement in several areas.

If the AFBCMR grants relief they recommend only correcting the feedback block to reflect the applicant has substantiated that mid-term feedback was not provided.  The rest of the report remains a valid assessment as written.

The evaluation is at Exhibit C.

AFPC/DPPPWB deferred their recommendation to AFPC/DPPPE.  The first time the contested report was used in the promotion process was cycle CY03A to staff sergeant.  The applicant’s total promotion score was 232.11 and the score required for selection in her Air Force Specialty Code (AFSC) was 241.95.  In accordance with AFI 36-2502, paragraph 2.5, supplemental promotion consideration may not be granted if the error or omission appeared on the member’s data verification record (DVR) and no corrective or follow-up action was taken by the member prior to the promotion selection.  The applicant did not take corrective action until 22 September 2003, after selections were made on 5 August 2003, and results were released on 13 August 2003.  However, should the Board void the report, providing she is otherwise eligible, the applicant would become a select as her total score would increase to 246.33, above the 241.95 score required for selection in her AFSC.

The evaluation is at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

On 6 February 2004, copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant for review and response within 30 days.  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 an error or an injustice.  The applicant contends the contested EPR is unjust, she was given an initial feedback but never received a midterm, and she had no indication of substandard performance.  We note she received promotion Below-the-Zone during the contested rating period and the comments in the EPR indicate an expert and superb performer.  However, after thoroughly reviewing the evidence of record we are not persuaded that the contested report should be declared void and removed from her records.  We note the applicant has not submitted any supporting documentation from the rating chain of the contested report and has failed to provide evidence showing the report was not an accurate assessment as rendered.  The applicant provided a letter of support from her current first sergeant which is duly noted; however, he was not tasked with assessing the applicant’s duty performance during the contested time period.  The Board further notes the applicant’s initial performance feedback worksheet, dated 28 August 2002, which indicates there was room for improvement in several areas.  Therefore, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of the Air Force and adopt their rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice.  Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, 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 an 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-2003-03357 in Executive Session on 10 March 2004 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

The following documentary evidence was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 22 September 2003, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPE, dated 31 December 2003.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPWB, dated 9 January 2004.
   Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 6 February 2004.