RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER: 98-01718
                 INDEX CODE 111.02 111.05
                 COUNSEL:  None

                 HEARING DESIRED:  No
_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

The referral Enlisted Performance Reports (EPRs) closing 1 July  1992,
1 July 1993, and 14 June 1995 be removed from his records or  upgraded
to the maximum levels.
_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He reported personnel for no training  program,  unfair  work  ethics,
discrimination, and violation of regulations. The rater  and  indorser
were biased against him. He refers to Equal  Opportunity  &  Treatment
(EOT) and  Inspector  General  (IG)  complaints  and  a  Congressional
Inquiry filed in 1992; however he provides no documents.

In support, he provides  documents  submitted  when  he  rebutted  the
contested reports, including references from individuals  outside  his
rating chain, and other materials.

Applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant is currently serving in the Regular Air Force in  the  grade
of staff sergeant (Date of Rank: 1 Aug 89) and is assigned to  Tyndall
AFB, FL, as a diet therapy  specialist.   Unless  he  is  promoted  to
master sergeant, he has a mandatory retirement date of 1 June 2000 due
to High Year of Tenure (HYT).

Based on documents submitted by the applicant, he apparently  received
several letters of counseling and a letter of reprimand  (LOR)  during
1993. In March 1993 a commander’s task  evaluation  was  conducted  to
assess his task performance, subject knowledge and  attitude.  It  was
determined that he was knowledgeable about the task but  deficient  in
its application.  The  applicant  apparently  filed  an  IG  complaint
regarding an EPR; however, on 13 December 1993 he was advised that the
matter was inappropriate to pursue within the IG complaint system  and
that he should first exhaust his remedies under AFI  31-11.  He  filed
three appeals to void the 1 July 1992 EPR under the provisions of  AFR
31-11. Two of these appeals were returned without action and the third
was denied by the Airman Personnel Records Review Board (APRRPB) on 30
March 1993. He also received an LOR on 18 April 1995, which was placed
in his Unfavorable Information File (UIF).

The overall ratings of applicant’s performance reports since 1981 are:
7,  9,  8,  9,  9,  9,  8,  8,  8,  9,   9,   5   (New   System),   4,
2 (Referral/Contested),     2     (Referral/Contested),     3,      4,
2 (Referral/Contested), 3, 3, 4.
_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The Chief, Inquiries/AFBCMR Section, AFPC/DPPPWB, reviewed the  appeal
and indicates that applicant was ineligible to  test  for  cycle  94A6
because he did not possess  the  required  Air  Force  Specialty  Code
(AFSC) skill level.  He was ineligible for the 95E6 cycle as he was on
the Control Roster, which is an  automatic  ineligible  for  promotion
consideration. The Chief  advises  that,  should  the  Board  void  or
upgrade  any  or  all   of   the   reports,   supplemental   promotion
consideration would serve no useful purpose as the applicant would not
become a selectee for any of the pertinent cycles (95A6,  96E6,  97E6,
98E6).

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

The Chief, BCMR & SSB Section, AFPC/DPPPAB, also  evaluated  the  case
and  notes  that   the   applicant   has   failed   to   provide   any
information/support from the rating chain on the contested  EPRs.  The
letters he does provide are not germane to his appeal. While  entitled
to their opinion, these individuals were not in a better  position  to
evaluation him  during  the  reporting  period  than  those  who  were
specifically charged with that  responsibility.  He  has  provided  no
evidence to prove his  rater  was  biased.  He  contends  he  was  not
provided written  feedback,  but  he  included  a  signed  copy  of  a
performance feedback notice indicating  he  received  feedback  on  28
February 1995. Lack of counseling  or  feedback,  by  itself,  is  not
sufficient to challenge the accuracy or justness of  a  report.  While
the applicant believes removing  these  reports  would  allow  him  to
continue serving in the Air Force, the Chief does not agree.  HYT  for
both staff and technical sergeants is 20 years.  He  would  not  be  a
selectee if the board removed the reports; therefore, it  is  unlikely
he would be  promoted  to  master  sergeant  prior  to  his  mandatory
retirement date.  Denial is appropriate.

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

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Applicant reviewed the evaluations  and  provides,  along  with  other
documents, a copy of the EOT complaint he filed in 1992,  but  without
any  finding/recommendation.  He  contends  he  was  inadequately  and
improperly trained.  False accusations against him started at the time
of the reported periods and he  has  become  less  favorable  in  some
people’s eyes. None of his chain of command is available; even if they
were, he believes it would be a waste of his time and  theirs  because
they would not give an  adequate  assessment.  The  contested  reports
should be upgraded to the maximum levels.

He also provides a statement  from  the  former  Nutritional  Medicine
Service NCOIC, who indicates that in 1995 the  duty  section  training
program for the Diet Therapy Career Field was inadequate.

Applicant’s complete rebuttal, with attachments, 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 probable error or injustice. After a thorough  review
of the evidence of record  and  applicant’s  submission,  we  are  not
persuaded that the  contested  EPRs  should  be  voided  or  upgraded.
Applicant’s contentions are duly noted; however, we do not find  these
assertions, in and by themselves, sufficiently persuasive to  override
the evidence of record and the rationale provided by  the  Air  Force.
The applicant has not presented convincing evidence substantiating his
allegations that these reports were biased, retaliatory, or inaccurate
assessments of his performance during the  pertinent  rating  periods.
There are no supporting or  explanatory  statements  from  the  rating
chain members, nor does the applicant submit the findings of  his  EOT
complaint. We note the IG advised the applicant that this  was  not  a
matter they would pursue. We  also  note  that  all  but  one  of  the
evaluators of contested EPRs rated the applicant higher  during  other
rating periods; therefore, we fail to  see  any  bias  on  their  part
towards him. In view of the above, we agree with  the  recommendations
of the Air Force and adopt the rationale expressed as  the  basis  for
our decision that the applicant has failed to sustain  his  burden  of
having suffered either an error or  an  injustice.  Absent  persuasive
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 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 23 February 1999, under the provisions of AFI 36-
2603:

                  Mr. Benedict A. Kausal IV, Panel Chair
                  Dr. Gerald B. Kauvar, Member
                  Ms. Melinda J. Loftin, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149s (3), dated 15 Jun 98, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPPWB , dated 22 Jul 98.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPPAB, dated 28 Jul 98
   Exhibit E.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 10 Aug 98.
   Exhibit F.  Letters (2), Applicant, undated and dated
                  15 Sep 98, w/atchs.




                                   BENEDICT A. KAUSAL IV
                                   Panel Chair