RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  00-03332
            INDEX CODE:     111.02

            COUNSEL:  None

            HEARING DESIRED:  No

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His Enlisted Performance Report (EPR), rendered for  the  period  2 June
1998 through 1 June 1999, be declared void and removed from his records.
_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The EPR reflects inaccuracies between  the  ratings  given  on  the  two
Performance Feedback Worksheets (PFW) and the ratings given on  the  EPR
to justify it being referral. Additionally, the applicant contends  that
the rater did not write the EPR, which is in direct violation of AFI 36-
2403, The Enlisted Evaluation System.

In support of his application, the applicant submitted copies of the EPR
in question with copies of his PFWs and documents  associated  with  his
appeal under AFI 36-2401, Correcting  Officer  and  Enlisted  Evaluation
Reports.  The applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.

___________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Information extracted from the Personnel Data System indicates that  the
applicant entered active duty on 9 February  1984.   Effective  10  July
1998, he was assigned to duties as an Enlisted Accessions Recruiter.  He
is currently serving in the grade of E-6, with  a  date  of  rank  of  1
February 1995.  Prior to his assignment as a Recruiter,  he  was  a  U-2
Inspection Shift Supervisor assigned to  the  9th  Maintenance  Squadron
(ACC), Beale AFB CA.  The following is a  resume  of  his  EPR  ratings,
commencing with the report closing 2 April 1995.

      PERIOD ENDING    PROMOTION RECOMMENDATION

        02 Apr 1995                      5
        10 Sep 1995                              5
        10 Sep 1996                              5
      PERIOD ENDING    PROMOTION RECOMMENDATION

       10 Sep 1997                 5
       01 Jun 1998                 5
 * 01 Jun 1999               4
       05 June 2000                4

NOTE:  * - Contested report.  A similar appeal by the applicant was
           considered and denied by the Evaluation Reports Appeal
           Board.
___________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The Enlisted Promotion and Military Testing Branch, AFPC/DPPPWB,  states
that if the Board removes the referral EPR as requested,  the  applicant
will be entitled to supplemental promotion consideration  for  the  00E7
cycle  provided  he  is  otherwise  qualified  and  recommended  by  his
commander.

The first cycle the EPR closing 1 June 1999  would  normally  have  been
considered in the promotion process was 00E7 (promotions effective 1 Aug
00 – 1 Jul 01).   When  the  applicant  received  the  referral  EPR  it
automatically rendered him ineligible for promotion for the  00E7  cycle
in accordance with AFI 36-2502,  Airman  Promotion  Program.   Promotion
eligibility is regained only after receiving an EPR  rating  of  “3”  or
higher that is not a referral and closes  out  on  or  before  the  next
Promotion Eligibility Cutoff Date (PECD) for the next cycle.   The  PECD
for the next cycle, 00E7, was 31 December 1999.  Because the applicant’s
last EPR was referral closing 1 June 1999 (he did not receive  his  next
EPR until 5 June 2000), he was ineligible  for  promotion  consideration
for the 00E7 cycle (see Exhibit C).

The  Performance  Evaluation   Section,   AFPC/DPPPEP,   reviewed   this
application and recommended denial of the applicant’s request  but  that
the date the rater signed the report be changed from 13 Sep 99 to 28 Jul
99.  DPPPEP indicates that  to  effectively  challenge  an  EPR,  it  is
necessary to hear from all the members of the rating chain not only  for
support, but also for clarification/explanation. The applicant  attempts
to relate the ratings on the EPR  to  the  ratings  on  the  performance
feedback worksheet (PFW).  This is an inappropriate  comparison  and  is
inconsistent with AFI 36-2403.   The  applicant  has  not  provided  any
information/support from the rating chain on the contested  EPR.   Other
than his own opinion that the rater did not write the  EPR  in  question
but rather that it was prepared by the indorser, the applicant  has  not
provided  any  documentary  evidence   or   supportive   statements   to
substantiate this allegation.  DPPPEP states that an  evaluation  report
is considered to be accurate as written when  it  becomes  a  matter  of
record.   In  the  absence  of  evidence   from   evaluators,   official
substantiation of error or  injustice  from  the  Inspector  General  or
Military Equal Opportunity officials,  they  do  not  believe  favorable
consideration  of  the  applicant’s  stated  request   is   appropriate.
However, since the rater presented the referral report to the  applicant
on 28 July 1999 they believe the date the rater signed the report should
be changed to that date. (See Exhibit D)

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to  applicant  on  16
March 2001 for review and response.  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.  We  have  noted  the  applicant’s
assertions.  However, other than  his  own  self-supportive  statements,  we
have seen no evidence by the applicant which would lead us to  believe  that
the contested report was technically flawed,  that  the  rater’s  evaluation
was coerced, or that his  evaluators  based  their  assessments  on  factors
other than his duty performance during the period  covered  by  the  report.
Therefore, we agree with the opinion and recommendation  of  the  Air  Force
office of primary responsibility 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,  we  find
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 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 26 April 2001,under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

      Mr. Richard A. Peterson, Panel Chair
      Ms. Nancy W. Drury, Member
      Mr. John E. Pettit, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, 8 December 2000, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
     Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPWB w/atchs, dated 9 February 2001.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPEP, dated 13 February 2001.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 16 March 2001.



                                   RICHARD A. PETERSON
                                   Panel Chair