RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  00-00390
            INDEX NUMBER:111.02, 107.00

            COUNSEL: NONE

            HEARING DESIRED: NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

/His 10 May 99 Enlisted  Performance  Report  (EPR)  be  rewritten  or
voided from his records.  He also  requests  his  Meritorious  Service
Medal (MSM) covering the period 2 Jul 97 – 3 Jun 99 be approved.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

His EPR was rewritten and downgraded after the  original  version  was
sent forward to be indorsed.  He also contends the report should  have
been referred to him.

The applicant states that he believes the reasons for  the  change  in
his EPR and why his MSM was cancelled  less  than  30  days  prior  to
departure was due to the fact that there was a difference  of  opinion
between himself and his rater.

In support of his appeal, applicant submits a copy  of  the  contested
performance report, Performance Feedback Worksheets (PFW), letters  of
support and emails.

Applicant’s complete submission is attached at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Information extracted from the Personnel Data  System  (PDS)  reflects
applicant’s Total Active Federal Military Service Date (TAFMSD) as  17
August 1978.  His current Date of Enlistment (DOE) is 13 October 1998.
 He is currently serving  in  the  grade  of  Senior  Master  Sergeant
(SMSgt), with a Date of Rank (DOR) of 1 September 1996.

The  applicant  appealed  the  contested  report  under  AFI  36-2401,
Correcting Officer and Enlisted Evaluation Report, 1 Dec 97, which was
denied by the Evaluation Reports Appeal Board  (ERAB).   A  resume  of
applicant’s EPR profile, as reflected in  the  Personnel  Data  System
(PDS), follows:

            PERIOD CLOSING              OVERALL EVALUATION


                 29 Jan 90                                    5

                 29 Jan 91                                    5
                 13 Nov 91                                    5
                 10 Jun 92                                    5
                 10 Jun 93                                    5
                 10 May 94                                    5
                 10 May 95                                    5
                 10 May 96                                    5
                 10 May 97                                    5
                 10 May 98                                    5
      *          10 May 99                                    4
                 10 May 00                                    5

*  Contested Report

Applicant was awarded an MSM covering the period 1 July 1994 to 1 July
1997, for extended tour.  Applicant was awarded a second MSM  covering
the period 10 June 1999 to 20  June  2000,  for  Permanent  Change  of
Station (PCS) from Korea on 06 June 2000.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The Chief, Appeals and  SSB  Branch,  HQ  AFPC/DPPPAB,  reviewed  this
application and recommended denial  based  on  evidence  provided  and
findings of the ERAB.   They  indicate  Air  Force  policy  states  an
evaluation report is accurate as written when it becomes a  matter  of
record.  In  order  to  effectively  challenge  an  EPR,  support  and
clarification is  needed  from  the  applicant’s  rating  chain.   The
applicant failed to provide any supporting information from the rating
chain but did provide letters of support and character references from
outside of the rating chain.  The applicant included two PFWs from the
contested EPR’s rating period.  It appears that some improvement areas
were noted, although on  the  next  PFW,  the  supervisor  noted  some
improvement but still listed some areas of deficiency.  The  applicant
also provided a copy of an email in  which  his  rater  explained  his
markings and comments on the EPR.  Denial of the EPR  being  rewritten
or voided is recommended.

A complete copy of the advisory is attached at Exhibit C.

The Chief, Awards and Decorations Section, HQ AFPC/DPPPR, reviewed the
application for award of the MSM for the period of 2 Jul 97  –  3  Jul
99.  The applicant provided a copy of the Recommendation of Decoration
Printout (RDP) dated 3 Apr 99, which was signed by the  rating  chain.
He also provided a copy of the proposed citation and an email from his
supervisor, which  stated  that  his  performance  was  not  what  was
expected of a Senior NCO.  End of tour decorations are not  automatic.
It is the supervisor’s responsibility to recommend  or  not  recommend
for a decoration upon Permanent Change of Station (PCS).   Disapproval
of the request for award of the MSM for the period of 2 Jul 97 – 3 Jun
99 was recommended.

A complete copy of the advisory is attached at Exhibit D.

The Chief, Inquiries/AFBCMR  Section,  HQ  AFPC/DPPPWB,  reviewed  the
application in regards to  the  supplemental  promotion  consideration
should the application be approved. Should the board upgrade  his  EPR
closing 10 May 99, void it entirely, or make any  significant  change,
the applicant will be entitled to supplemental promotion consideration
beginning with 99E9 promotion cycle to chief master sergeant.  If  the
applicant is authorized any decorations by the board, once this action
is finalized, a determination can be  made  as  to  what  supplemental
promotion consideration he may be entitled.  HQ AFPC/DPPPWB defers  to
the recommendation of AFPC/DPPPAB and AFPC/DPPPR.

A complete copy of the advisory is attached at Exhibit E.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on
7 April 2000, for review and response within 30 days (Exhibit F).   As
of this date, no response has been received by this office.   However,
we have received inquiries from members of Congress on the applicant’s
behalf, these inquiries are attached at Exhibit G.

_________________________________________________________________

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
unpersuaded that relief should be  granted.   Applicant’s  contentions
are duly noted and although the applicant submitted  numerous  letters
of support from outside of his rating chain, there was no evidence  of
support within the  rating  chain  to  substantiate  his  contentions.
Therefore, we do not find the assertions submitted by  the  applicant,
in  and  by  themselves,  sufficiently  persuasive  to  override   the
rationale provided by the offices of  the  Air  Force.   We  therefore
adopt the rationale expressed as the basis for our decision  that  the
applicant has failed to sustain his burden that he has suffered either
an error or an injustice.  Hence,  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 07 September 2000 and 09 November 2000, under the
provisions of AFI 36-2603:

      Mr. Thomas S. Markiewicz, Panel Chair
      Mr. Laurence M. Groner, Member
      Mr. Charlie W. Williams Jr., Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 02 Feb 00.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPPAB, dated 03 Mar 00.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPPR, dated 09 Mar 00.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPPWB, dated 16 Mar 00.
    Exhibit F.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 07 Apr 00.
    Exhibit G.  Letter, Sen. Schumer, dated 8 May 00, w/atchs.
                        Letter, C/M Serrano, dated 14 Mar 00, w/atchs.




                                   THOMAS S. MARKIEWICZ
                                   Panel Chair