RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  00-03160
                       INDEX CODE:  111.02

      APPLICANT  COUNSEL:  None

      SSN        HEARING DESIRED:  None

_________________________________________________________________


APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

The Enlisted  Performance Report (EPR)  rendered for  the period 1 Apr
99 thru 31 Mar 00 be declared void.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The EPR was written with prejudice. The referral comments he  received
were for incidents that he did not commit.   Before  he  departed  for
Temporary Duty (TDY) he asked his supervisor what his EPR  would  look
like and the response he received was that it would be  a  4  provided
that he and the supervisor had no disagreements.

Applicant's complete submission is attached at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant is currently serving in the Regular  Air  Force  in  the
grade of staff sergeant.

The applicant appealed the contested report under  the  provisions  of
AFI 36-2401, Correcting Officer and Enlisted Evaluations Reports.  The
Evaluation Reports Appeal  Board  (ERAB)  was  not  convinced  by  the
documentation submitted by the applicant and denied his request.

EPR profile as a staff sergeant reflects the following:

                 PERIOD ENDING               OVERALL EVALUATION

                   31 Mar 93                       4
                   31 Mar 94                       5
                   31 Mar 95                       5
                   31 Mar 96                       5
                   31 Mar 97                       5
                   31 Mar 98                       3
                  *31 Mar 99                       3
                 **31 Mar 00                       3

* Referral report.
** Contested report.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR STAFF EVALUATION:

The  Chief,  Inquiries/AFBCMR  Section,  AFPC/DPPPWB,  reviewed   this
application and  stated  the  first  cycle  the  contested  EPR  would
possibly be considered in the promotion process  is  the  01E6  cycle.
Since, the EPR is a referral it renders the applicant  ineligible  for
promotion consideration according to AFI 36-2502.  If the  report  was
voided  as  requested  the  member  would  still  be  ineligible   for
supplemental consideration due to the referral EPR closing 31 Mar  99.
The EPRs for Mar 99 and Mar 00 would have to be voided  in  order  for
the  applicant  to  be  considered  for  promotion,  providing  he  is
otherwise eligible for promotion consideration (Exhibit C).

The Chief, Performance Evaluation Section, AFPC/DPPPE,  reviewed  this
application and states the applicant submitted an appeal to  the  ERAB
and the ERAB was not convinced that the applicant’s  EPR  was  written
with prejudice.  The ERAB stated the  applicant  did  not  submit  any
evidence to support the voiding of the EPR.   The  applicant  has  not
submitted any documentation addressing what is erroneous on  his  EPR.
The applicant does not  have  any  documentation  from  his  chain  of
command referencing their support to void the EPR.  The applicant  has
raised  suspicion  of  a  conflict  between  him  and  his   immediate
supervisor.  The letters of support he submitted are from another NCO,
who is a coworker and the flight chief, they  do  not  attest  to  the
invalidity of the applicant’s EPR.  The  rating  chain  in  accordance
with policy chose to articulate his substandard  duty  performance  on
his evaluation.  Therefore,  based  on  the  evidence  submitted  they
recommend denying the applicant’s request.

A complete copy of their evaluation is attached at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR STAFF EVALUATION:

Complete copies of the Air Force evaluations  were  forwarded  to  the
applicant on 2 Feb 01, for review and response.  As of this  date,  no
response has been received by this office.

_________________________________________________________________

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  reviewing  the
evidence submitted with this appeal, the Board majority notes that the
applicant has not submitted  any  supporting  documentation  from  the
rating chain and has failed to  provide  sufficient  evidence  showing
that the contested report was not an accurate assessment as  rendered.
The performance  feedback  sheet  indicates  that  the  applicant  was
counseled by his rater regarding areas where improvement was required.
 The  majority  notes  the  supporting  statements  from  the  Traffic
Management Officer  and  the  NCOIC,  Inbound  Personal  Property  and
Passenger Travel; however, these  individuals  were  not  tasked  with
assessing  the  applicant’s  performance  during  the  contested  time
period.   Additionally,  the  majority  noted  that  the   applicant’s
previous two reports, one of which was also a  referral  report,  were
also rated as  “3s.”   While  previous  reports  are  not  necessarily
indicative of future performance, the majority noted  that  completely
different evaluators rendered these evaluations and  in  our  opinion,
may have shown a developing trend.  The  majority  finds  no  evidence
that the rating chain could not render an objective evaluation of  the
applicant’s performance on the contested report.  In view of the above
findings,  the  Board   majority   agrees   with   the   opinion   and
recommendation of the Air Force and adopt their rationale as the basis
for our conclusion that the applicant has not been the  victim  of  an
error or injustice.  Therefore, in the  absence  of  evidence  to  the
contrary, the majority finds no compelling basis to recommend granting
the relief sought in this application.

_________________________________________________________________

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 10 April 2001, under the provisions  of  AFI  36-
2603.

            Ms. Peggy E. Gordon, Panel Chairman
            Mr. Philip Sheuerman, Member
            Mr. Michael V. Barbino, Member

By a majority vote, the Board recommended denial of  the  application.
Mr. Barbino voted to correct the records and has submitted a  Minority
Report which is attached at  Exhibit  F.   The  following  documentary
evidence was considered:

      Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 13 Dec 00, w/atchs.
      Exhibit B. Applicant's Enlisted Performance Reports.
      Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPPPWB, dated 2 Jan 01.
      Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/DPPPE, dated 18 Jan 01.
      Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 2 Feb 01.
      Exhibit F. Minority Report.




                       PEGGY E. GORDON
                       Panel Chair





AFBCMR 00-03160





MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, AIR FORCE BOARD
                 FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS (AFBCMR)

SUBJECT:  AFBCMR Application of APPLICANT

      I have carefully reviewed the evidence of record and the
recommendation of the Board members.  A majority found that applicant
had not provided substantial evidence of error or injustice and
recommended the case be denied.  I concur with that finding and their
conclusion that relief is not warranted.  Accordingly, I accept their
recommendation that the application be denied.

      Please advise the applicant accordingly.




                                        JOE G. LINEBERGER
                                        Director
                                        Air Force Review Boards Agency