RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBERS:  00-02866
INDEX CODES:  111.02, 111.05, 131.05, 134.01, 134.02
            COUNSEL:  None

            HEARING DESIRED:  Yes

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His Unfavorable Information  File  (UIF)  and  the  referral  Enlisted
Performance Report closing 25 Jul 98 be voided, his date of rank (DOR)
to airman first class (A1C) be changed from 15 Jun 99  to  26 Mar  98,
and his DOR to senior airman (SRA) be changed from 15 Feb 01 to 26 Nov
99.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He has been unfairly judged and treated. The referral  EPR  is  not  a
fair evaluation.  He has enjoyed his time in the Air Force  and  would
like to be given the opportunity to show his potential in the future.

A copy of his complete appeal is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force in the grade of airman
basic on 26 Nov 96.  During the period in question, he was  an  airman
assigned to the 492nd Fighter Squadron, RAF Lakenheath, England, as an
assistant dedicated crew chief.

His  performance  reports  reflect  the  following  overall   ratings:
2 (contested EPR), 4, 5 and 5.

Since filing his appeal, he has been promoted to the grade of SRA with
a DOR of 15 Feb 01.

The applicant has not filed an appeal under AFI 36-2401 with regard to
the EPR issue.

The references  by  HQ  AFPC/DPSFM  (Exhibit  C)  and  HQ  AFPC/DPPPWB
(Exhibit D) to the applicant being placed on the Control Roster on  18
May 98 could not be verified.  The  UIF  Form  1058  dated  27 Mar  98
reflects the commander did not place  the  applicant  on  the  Control
Roster.  The UIF Form 1058 dated 27 May 98 does not indicate  one  way
or the other whether the commander placed the applicant on the Control
Roster.  Pursuant to inquiries by the AFBCMR Staff, DPSFM  and  DPPPWB
acknowledged that their advisories may have erred with regard  to  the
Control Roster.

The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this appeal  are  contained
in the applicant’s military  records  (Exhibit  B),  and  the  letters
prepared by the appropriate offices of the Air Force  (Exhibits  C,  D
and E).  Accordingly, there is no need to recite these facts  in  this
Record of Proceedings.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The  Chief,  Field  Activities  Division,  HQ  AFPC/DPSFM,  notes  the
applicant no longer has an active UIF since the one created for the 12
May 98 Letter of Reprimand (LOR) has expired.  Therefore,  the  author
assumes the applicant is requesting that  his  historical  records  be
modified to reflect he never had a UIF. When afforded the  opportunity
to formally respond  to  his  LORs,  the  applicant  appears  to  have
remained silent.  He did not file formal complaints.   The  author  is
not persuaded by the unsworn  character  references  provided  by  the
applicant. The LORs and UIF were properly  rendered  and  established.
The referral EPR is entirely consistent with the decision to place him
on the Control Roster two months earlier on 18 May 98. [See  Statement
of Facts regarding the advisory opinion’s reference to Control  Roster
Action.]  Denial  is  recommended  as  the   applicant   provides   no
justification to warrant correction of his records.

A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit C.

The Chief, Inquiries/AFBCMR Section, HQ AFPC/DPPPWB, discusses time-in-
grade  (TIG)/time-in-service  (TIS)  requirements,   the   applicant’s
originally projected  DORs,  and  the  impact  of  the  administrative
actions taken against him.  The author notes that if the applicant had
been promoted to A1C on 26 Mar 98 when he  completed  the  minimum  10
months TIG, he would have met  the  36  months  Total  Active  Federal
Military Service (TAFMS) and 20 months TIG requirement  for  promotion
to SRA on 26  Nov  99.   The  actions  taken  by  the  commander  were
appropriate and prevented the applicant from being  promoted  when  he
met the minimum  TIG  and  TIS  requirements  to  A1C  and  SRA.  [See
Statement of Facts  regarding  the  advisory  opinion’s  reference  to
Control Roster Action.] If the Board changes the applicant’s DORs  for
A1C and SRA to 26 Mar 98 and 26 Nov  99,  respectively,  he  would  be
eligible for supplemental promotion consideration  to  staff  sergeant
beginning  with  the  00E5  cycle,  provided  he  is  recommended  and
otherwise eligible.  However, the  author  recommends  the  appeal  be
denied.

A complete copy of the evaluation, with attachment, is at Exhibit D.

The Chief, Evaluation Procedures Section, HQ AFPC/DPPPEP, reviewed the
appeal and provided his rationale for recommending  denial.   However,
the author notes a missing performance “bullet” in Section VI  of  the
contested EPR. This does not invalidate the report.  The indorser  was
contacted and provided the following comment for placement in  Section
VI: “Performed daily  housekeeping  of  his  assigned  shelter.”   The
author recommends the contested  EPR  be  corrected  to  include  this
comment in Section VI.

A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit E.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Complete copies of the Air Force evaluations  were  forwarded  to  the
applicant on 30 Mar 01 for review and comment within 30 days.   As  of
this date, this office has received no response.

_________________________________________________________________

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 to warrant correcting the
applicant’s records as requested.   The  applicant  received  numerous
Letters of Counseling (LOCs)  and  two  Letters  of  Reprimand  (LORs)
during the reporting period.  Both LORs were filed in the  applicant’s
UIF. The applicant’s submission fails to establish that the LORs  were
improperly rendered, the UIF was improperly established, or  that  any
of  the  administrative  actions  were  unjustified  or  exceeded  the
authority of his supervisor and commander. These adverse  actions  do,
however,  support  the  contested  EPR’s  negative  comments  and  the
applicant not being recommended for promotion.  The  applicant’s  poor
performance and potential appeared to be entrenched at  that  time  in
his career.  In fact, his records indicate he received two  more  LOCs
after the referral report’s closing  date.   Apparently,  the  adverse
administrative  actions  finally  helped  the  applicant  modify   his
behavior, as his subsequent EPRs and  promotion  to  SRA  reflect.  We
applaud his improved efforts and wish him a long and successful career
in the Air Force.  However, we do not believe the referral EPR and the
other negative actions against him should be voided from his  history.
They were properly rendered and may have served as the “wake up  call”
the applicant needed to turn himself into the model military member he
is today.

4.    We note  the  HQ  AFPC/DPPPEP  advisory  opinion  indicated  the
contested EPR should have a performance comment in  Section  VI.   The
advisory office obtained an appropriate comment from the indorser that
could be added to this section.  We  do  not  find  that  the  missing
“bullet statement” invalidates the EPR; however, we do recommend  that
the report be corrected to include it as indicated below.

5.    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 RECOMMENDS THAT:

The pertinent military records of the  Department  of  the  Air  Force
relating  to  APPLICANT,  be  corrected  to  show  that  the  Enlisted
Performance Report, AF Form 910, rendered for the  period  26  Nov  96
through 25 Jul 98, be amended by adding the comment, “Performed  daily
housekeeping of his assigned shelter,” to Section VI.

_________________________________________________________________

The following members of the  Board  considered  this  application  in
Executive Session on 8 May 2001 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

                 Mr. Teddy L. Houston, Panel Chair
                 Mr. John L. Robuck, Member
                 Mr. Edward H. Parker, Member

All  members  voted  to  correct  the  records  as  recommended.   The
following documentary evidence was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 19 Oct 00, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPSFM, dated 23 Jan 01.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPPWB, dated 25 Jan 01, w/atch.
   Exhibit E.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPPEP, dated 5 Feb 01.
   Exhibit F.  Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 30 Mar 01.




                                   TEDDY L. HOUSTON
                                   Panel Chair




AFBCMR 00-02866




MEMORANDUM FOR THE CHIEF OF STAFF

      Having received and considered the recommendation of the Air
Force Board for Correction of Military Records and under the authority
of Section 1552, Title 10, United States Code (70A Stat 116), it is
directed that:

      The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air
Force relating to            , be corrected to show that the Enlisted
Performance Report, AF Form 910, rendered for the period 26 November
1996 through 25 July 1998, be amended by adding the comment,
“Performed daily housekeeping of his assigned shelter,” to Section VI.






             JOE G. LINEBERGER

             Director

             Air Force Review Boards Agency