RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2004-00055
		INDEX CODE:  111.02

		COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED:  YES

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His Referral Enlisted Performance Report (EPR), rendered for the period 6 April 2001 through 21 December 2001, is declared void and removed from his records. 
_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The contested report is neither accurate nor objective, contains false information and was partially drafted by the rater who acknowledged being inappropriately influenced by the unit commander’s blatant and negative bias.

In support of his request, the applicant submits a personal statement with additional documents associated with the issues cited in his contentions.  The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Information extracted from the Personnel Data System (PDS) reveals the applicant’s Total Active Federal Military Service Date (TAFMSD) as 30 January 1989.  He is currently serving on active duty in the grade of technical sergeant, with an effective date of rank of 1 November 2001.

Information extracted from applicant’s submission reveals that he was issued a Letter of Reprimand (LOR) by his commander on 7 December 2001 for lying to his superiors in regards to the marital status of a Security Forces investigator and for applicant’s continued involvement in the domestic relationship of another member.  The applicant submitted a rebuttal to the LOR on 9 December 2001.

Applicant's Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) profile for the last ten reporting periods was extracted from the Military Personnel Data System (MilPDS) as follows:

		Period Ending			Evaluation

	  15 May 95 (grade - E-5)	5 - Immediate Promotion
	   5 Apr 96	5
	   5 Apr 97	5
	   5 Apr 98	5
	   5 Apr 99	5
	   5 Apr 00	5
	   5 Apr 01	4 - Ready for Promotion
	 *21 Dec 01 (grade - E-6)	2 - Not Recommended
	  21 Dec 02	4
	   2 Jul 03	4

* Contested referral report

A similar appeal by the applicant, under Air Force Instruction (AFI) 36-2401, was considered and denied by the Evaluation Report Appeal Board (ERAB) on 14 November 2002.
_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS:

HQ AFPC/DPPPE recommends the application be denied.  DPPPE indicates the ERAB specifically informed the applicant that he should obtain a statement from the rater indicating she was coerced by the commander; however, he has not provided such report.  The supporting statements are provided from third party individuals not in the best position to know exactly what transpired.  The applicant has not provided any supporting documentation proving the validity of the comments/ratings made on the contested report were in any way questionable.  The HQ AFPC/DPPPE evaluation is at Exhibit C.

HQ AFPC/DPPPWB states that, based on the applicant’s 1 November 2001 date of rank (DOR) to technical sergeant (E-6), the first time the contested report will be considered in the promotion process is Cycle 04E7 to master sergeant (E-7), promotions effective Aug 04 - Jul 05.  Should the Board void the report in its entirety the applicant would be entitled to supplemental consideration for cycle 04E7.  They defer to the recommendation of HQ AFPC/DPPPE.  The HQ AFPC/DPPPWB evaluation is at Exhibit D.
_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS:

The applicant reviewed the advisory opinions and indicated that the rater departed before she knew any negative information was being written in his referral EPR and has since repeatedly avoided his contact attempts.  One of his hopes in filing the IG complaint for retribution regarding his EPR was that an investigator would obtain a statement from his rater and vindicate him.  Unfortunately, the IG office declined to investigate.  The facts are that his EPR contains false and fabricated information.  No evidence exists to prove the accusations on his EPR.  His complete submission, with attachment, 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 error or injustice.  We are unconvinced by the evidence presented that the contested report was technically flawed when prepared, that the ratings were based on inaccurate information, or that the rater was coerced to rate the applicant in any way.  Evaluators are required to assess a ratee’s performance, honestly and to the best of their ability, based on their observance of an individual’s performance.  We have noted the documents provided with the applicant’s submission.  However, they do not, in our opinion, support a finding that the evaluators were unable to render unbiased evaluations of the applicant’s performance or that the ratings on the contested report were based on factors other than applicant’s duty performance during the contested rating period.  No supporting documentation has been submitted from the rater to substantiate that the report was not an accurate assessment as rendered.  Additionally, we note that, following a review of the applicant’s allegations of reprisal, the DoD IG determined a reprisal investigation was not warranted.  In view of the foregoing, and in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no compelling basis to recommend favorable action on applicant’s request that the contested report be removed from his records.

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(s) 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 this application in Executive Session on 23 June 2004, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

The following documentary evidence was considered in connection with AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2004-00055.

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 1 Oct 03, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPPE, dated 15 Mar 04.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPPWB, dated 19 Mar 04.
   Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 2 Apr 04.
   Exhibit F.  Letter from Applicant, dated 6 Apr 04, w/atch.

                                   
                                   Chair