RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2004-01785
		INDEX NUMBER:  111.02

		COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED:  NO

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

Her Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) rendered for the period 23 Oct 97 through 12 May 00, reflecting an overall promotion recommendation of “4” be removed from her records and the reaccomplished report reflecting an overall promotion recommendation of “5” be substituted in its place.

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

Undue emphasis was placed on an isolated incident and should not have affected her performance report.  She feels this isolated incident has adversely affected two reporting periods.

In support of her request, the applicant submits a personal statement, and a copy of her application to the Evaluation Reports Appeal Board (ERAB), which included a supporting statement from the rater on the contested report.

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

___________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant is currently serving on active duty in the grade of senior airman.

Applicant’s EPR profile follows: 

	         Period Ending		Overall Promotion Evaluation

	(SrA)  * 12 May 2000				4
	       # 12 May 2001				4
           12 May 2002				5
           12 May 2003				5
           12 May 2004				5

* Contested Report

# The ERAB deleted the referral comment “Due to inadvertent security disclosure received LOR; developed a keen awareness of security obligations,” from the report closing 12 May 01.

___________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

HQ AFPC/DPPPE recommends the application be denied.  DPPPE states applicant’s contention undue emphasis was placed on an isolated incident has not been substantiated.  There was no documentation proving that applicant’s evaluators placed any undue emphasis concerning her failure to properly secure classified material as nothing was documented on her report pertaining to the incident.  The ERAB did note applicant’s 12 May 01 report contained a referral comment stating, “Due to inadvertent security disclosure received LOR.”  This statement in itself strongly indicates the security violation incident was considered during the 12 May 01 report versus the 12 May 00 report the applicant is contesting.  (Note:  Although not relevant to the 12 May 00 report the applicant was contesting, the ERAB removed the security comment from the 12 May 01 report because it was not properly referred).  Regardless of which reporting report the incident was considered, it was within the evaluators’ rights and obligation to consider.

HQ AFPC/DPPPW states the first time the contested report was used in the promotion process was cycle 01E5 to staff sergeant.  Applicant’s total score was 228.95 and the required score for promotion in her AFSC was 247.12.  The required score for promotion in her AFSC for cycle 02E5 was 265.79 and her total score was 225.64.  The applicant’s total score for cycle 03E5 was 265.66 and the score required for promotion in her AFSC was 270.33.  Should the Board grant the applicant’s request to upgrade her report to a rating of “5,” she would become a select for cycle 01E5 with a DOR of 1 Apr 02.  Based on this DOR, she would then be eligible for supplemental promotion consideration to TSgt beginning with cycle 04E6.

A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation is at Exhibit C.

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Applicant has reiterated her contentions, further stating it appears as though the point of her application was lost among the various correspondences made between herself and the review at AFPC.  She further goes on to explain each document submitted in her package.  

Applicant also states she agrees with the Air Force advisory, however, the field “Basis for Request” should read, “The applicant contends that undue emphasis was placed on an isolated incident and should not have affected TWO performance reports.”  What is written in the field is not accurate.

Applicant’s response to Air Force evaluation is at 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 have noted the documents provided by the applicant, including the statement from the rater on the contested report.  However, these documents, in our opinion, do not support a finding that the markdowns in Section III (Evaluation of Performance) and the ratings in Section IV (Promotion Recommendation) were based solely on the security incident that occurred during the period in question.  Therefore, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of the Air Force office of primary responsibility and adopt their rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice and that there is no basis upon which to recommend favorable action on her request.

4.  Notwithstanding the above determination, if the applicant believes that her subsequent EPR closing 12 May 2001 is in error or unjust and she requests that it be removed from her records, the Board would be willing to entertain such a 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 Docket Number BC‑2004-01785 in Executive Session on 1 September 2004, under the provisions of AFI 36‑2603:

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 25 May 04, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPE, dated 23 Jul 04.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 30 Jul 04.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, Applicant, dated 23 Aug 04.