RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2003-03461
		INDEX CODE:  111.02

		COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His Enlisted Performance Report (EPR), rendered for the period 20 April 2000 through 3 December 2000, be either upgraded to a “5” or declared void and removed from his records. 
_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The rater was not available to observe his performance.  The rater’s comments were actually written by the additional rater.

In support of his request, the applicant submits a personal statement, copies of his EPRs and training certificates.  The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Information extracted from the Military Personnel Data System (MilPDS) reveals the applicant’s Total Active Federal Military Service Date (TAFMSD) as 16 February 1995.  He is currently serving on active duty in the grade of staff sergeant (E-5), with an effective date and date of rank of 1 October 2002.

Applicant's Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) profile for the last six reporting periods follows:

		Period Ending	Evaluation

	(SrA)	  20 Apr 99	5 - Immediate Promotion
		  20 Apr 00	4 - Ready
		*  3 Dec 00	3 - Consider
		   3 Dec 01	5
	(SSgt)	   3 Dec 02	5
		  10 Jul 03	5

* Contested report
_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS:

HQ AFPC/DPPPE recommends the application be denied. DPPPE states the applicant’s contention that the contested report was not written by his designated rater has not been substantiated.  DPPPE noted that the same rater rendered the Apr 00 EPR and the applicant has not challenged this report nor is there any proof a change of reporting official took place.  The HQ AFPC/DPPPE evaluation is at Exhibit C.

HQ AFPC/DPPPWB defers to the recommendation of HQ AFPC/DPPPEP.  DPPPWB states that based on the applicant’s date of rank to staff sergeant (E-5), the first time the contested report was considered in the promotion process is Cycle 05E6 to technical sergeant (E-6).  Should the Board upgrade the overall rating or void the report in its entirety, no supplemental consideration would be necessary as there is sufficient time to update the promotion file prior to release and announcement of selects sometime in June 2005.  The HQ AFPC/DPPPWB evaluation is at Exhibit D.
_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS:

Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to applicant on 12 March 2004 for review and response.  As of this date, no response has been received by this office (Exhibit E).
_________________________________________________________________

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.  We are unconvinced by the evidence presented that the contested report was technically flawed when prepared, or that the ratings were based on inaccurate information.  Other than his own assertions, there is no indication in the record before us that that the rater did not have reasonable information available concerning the applicant’s performance during the contested rating period on which to base a reasonably accurate assessment.  Direct supervision for an allotted time is not a prerequisite for being the rater of a report.  Evaluators may be in positions where they have infrequent contact with the ratee.  However, they are still required to be aware of the ratee’s performance and its impact on the unit’s mission.  Additionally, we note that the rater on the contested report was in the applicant’s rating chain on the preceding report which, in our view, supports the position that the rater was familiar with the applicant and was aware of his performance.  We note the applicant has not submitted any statements from his rating chain to provide evidence showing the report was not an accurate assessment of his performance at the time it was rendered.  In the absence of such evidence, we have no reason to question the accuracy of the contested report.  In view of the foregoing, we did not find sufficient evidence to substantiate an error or injustice in the initial preparation of the contested report.  Therefore, we conclude that no basis exists to recommend favorable action on the applicant’s request.
_________________________________________________________________

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 this application in Executive Session on 22 April 2004, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

The following documentary evidence was considered in connection with AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2003-03461.

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 27 Oct 03, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPPE, dated 1 Mar 04.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPPWB, dated 2 Mar 04.
   Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 12 Mar 04.