IN THE MATTER OF: 

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 
DOCKET NUMBER:  94-03329 
COUNSEL:  None 
HEARING DESIRED:  NO 

The Enlisted Performance Reports  (EPRs) rendered for the periods 
21 June  1990  through  20  June  1991  and  21  June  1991  through 
20 June 1992 be declared void and removed from his record. 

a. The  contested  EPR  closing  20  June  1991  is  not  only  an 
inaccuracy but  it is not a valid reflection of his performance. 
with no form of discipline ever presented and one feedback that 
represented a 4  rating, it is obvious and evident that this EPR 
was underrated. 

b. The  contested EPR  closing 20  June  1992,  reflects area and 
The 
duties  performed  during  previous  EPR  reporting  period. 
annotation on the back  of  his  19  February  1992  PFW, notes his 
change of duties as of 24 February 1992.  Therefore, this EPR is 
also  not  an  accurate  assessment  of  his  performance  for  the 
reporting period of 21 June 1991 through 20 June 1992. 
Applicant's complete submission is attached at Exhibit A. 

The applicant  is currently serving in the Regular Air  Force  in 
the grade of staff sergeant. 
The applicant appealed the contested report closing 20 June 1991 
under the provisions of AFI 36-2401  (formerly AFR  31-11) and the 
appeal was considered and denied by the Airman Personnel Records 
Review  Board  (APRRB).  They  have  no  record  that  the  report 
closing 20  June  1992  was  ever considered for removal under AFI 
36-2401. 

. 

I .  

c .  t 

i' 

APR/EPR profile since 1989 reflects the following: 

OD. ENDING 
6 N O ~  89 
20 Jun 90 
*  20 Jun 91 
* * 2 0   Jun 92 
20 Jun 93 
31 Dec 93 
30 Sep 94 

*  Contested report. 
**  Contested report. 

TTON 

.

-  

9 
4  (new sys.tem) 
3 
4 
5 
5 
4 

The Chief, SSBs &  BCMR Appeals Section, AFMPC/DPMAJAl, reviewed 
this application and states that applicant provides letters from 
individuals not  in his  immediate EPR  rating  chain  as  support. 
While  they  speak  well  of  his  performance,  they  do  not 
specifically  address  the  allegation  of  a  flawed  and  unjust 
rating.  What  the  rater's  rationale  may  have  been  for  the 
evaluations he provided is speculative at best; however, as noted 
by  the  applicant,  "...he still  feels  this  is  a  fair  rating." 
Applicant's decoration covers only  three months  of  the overall 
period  represented. 
Its  citation  is  much  too  broad  and 
inconclusive to  refute the  contested evaluations.  Even though 
his  primary  concern  is  their  impact  on  his  promotion 
opportunities, he  has  failed to  show the reports were  rendered 
inequitably or that they are an inaccurate appraisal of his duty 
performance during the reporting period.  Based on the evidence 
provided, they recommend denial. 

A complete copy of the evaluation is attached at Exhibit C. 
The Chief, Inquiries/Special Actions Section, AFMPC/DPMAJWl, also 
reviewed  this  application  and  states  that  the  first  time  the 
contested  report  closing  2 0   Jun  91  was  considered  in  the 
promotion process was  cycle  93A6 to  TSgt  (promotions effective 
Aug 92-Jul 93.) 
Should  the  Board  void  the  contested  report 
closing 20 Jun 91 in its entirety, or upgrade the overall rating, 
providing the applicant is otherwise eligible, the applicant will 
be  entitled  to  supplemental  promotion  consideration  beginning 
with cycle 93A6. 
The  first  time  the  contested  report  closing  20  Jun  92  was 
considered  in  the  promotion  process  was  cycle  94A6  to  TSgt 
(promotions effective Aug 93-Jul 94).  Should the AFBCMR void the 

2 

contested report closing 20 Jun 92 in its entirety, or upgrade 
the  overall  rating,  providing  he  is  otherwise  eligible,  the 
applicant  will  be  entitled  to  supplemental  promotion 
consideration beginning with cycle 94A6. 
A complete copy of their evaluation is attached at Exhibit D. - 

Copies of the Air Staff evaluations were  forwarded to applicant 
on 12 September 1994 for review and response.  As of this date, 
no response has been received by this office. 

The  Chief, SSBs  &  BCMR Appeals  Section, AFMPC/DPMAJA, reviewed 
this  application  and  states  that  while  the  PFW  indicates 
applicant was scheduled to change duties on 24 February 1992, it 
appears the contested EPR  covers the duties performed  for both 
jobs. 
Applicant  has  not  provided  any  documentation  from 
evaluators.  Without benefit of this documentation, they conclude 
that the contested report is accurate as written and, therefore, 
they do not recommend its removal from his record. 
A complete copy of their evaluation is attached at Exhibit F. 

The applicant reviewed the Air Staff evaluation and states that 
all avenues of support have been exhausted.  He feels that a lack 
of response from an evaluator(s) is a clear sign of inability and 
incapability to support or justify what has been written. 

Applicant's complete response is attached at Exhibit H 

The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by existing 

1. 
law or regulations. 

2.  The application was timely filed. 

3.  Insufficient  relevant  evidence  has  been  presented  to 
demonstrate the existence of probable error or injustice.  After 
reviewing  the  evidence  submitted  with  this  appeal, we  believe 
that  the  applicant  has  failed  to  provide  sufficient  evidence 

3 

showing  that  the  reports  are  an  inaccurate  assessment  of  his 
performance.  In view of the above findings, and in the absence 
of statements from the rating chain members, we are in complete 
agreement with the comments and recommendations of the Air Staff. 
Therefore, we find no compelling basis to recommend granting the 
relief sought in this application. 

The  applicant be  notified  that  the  evidence presented  did  not 
demonstrate  the  existence  of  probable  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 13 April  1995, under the provisions of AFR 
31-3: 

Mr. Charles E. Bennett, Panel Chairman 
Mr. Vaughn E. Schlunz, Member 
Mr. Henry Romo, Jr., Member 

The following documentary evidence was considered: 

Exhibit A. 
Exhibit B. 
Exhibit C. 
Exhibit D. 
Exhibit E. 
Exhibit F. 
Exhibit G. 
Exhibit H . 

DD Form 149, dated 26 July 1994. 
Applicant's Master Personnel Records. 
Letter, AFMPC/DPMAJAl, dated 31 Aug 1994. 
Letter, AFMPC/DPMAJWi, dated 12 Sep 1994. 
Letter, AFBCMR, dated 13 Sep 1994. 
Letter, AFMPC/DPMAJA, 12 Jan 1995. 
Letter, AFBCMR, dated 6  Feb 1995. 
Applicant's Response, dated 2 Mar 1995. 

Panel Chairman 

4