RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  01-00257

            COUNSEL:  GARY N. MYERS

            HEARING DESIRED:  No

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

The Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) rendered  for  the  period    23
March 1999 to 25 April 2000 be expunged from his records.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

There is no evidence that he has ever done  anything  on  duty,  which
would give rise to this EPR.  In  fact,  the  command  did  ultimately
allege service connected misconduct, which resulted in an  attempt  to
demote him.  That demotion action was denied by the commanding general
of the numbered Air Force.

The contested EPR is a reflection  of  his  wife’s  inappropriate  and
untruthful intrusion into his professional life.  This  EPR  does  not
reflect the truth.  He  did  not  show  “poor  judgment,  questionable
integrity  and  inappropriate  behavior  -  on  and  off  duty.”    He
demonstrated that conclusively in the demotion action and  this  is  a
vestige of that demotion action.  It should be expunged.

A copy of the  counsel’s  brief,  with  attachments,  is  attached  at
Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant is currently serving in the Regular  Air  Force  in  the
grade of TSgt (E-6).

The applicant appealed the contested report under  the  provisions  of
AFI 36-3201, Correcting Officer and Enlisted Evaluation Reports, based
on insufficient supervision.  The appeal was considered and denied  by
the Evaluation Reports  Appeal  Board  (ERAB)  based  on  insufficient
supervision.  Instead,  the  ERAB  directed  the  number  of  days  of
supervision be changed to “62” days, remove the erroneous report  from
his Unit Personnel Record Group,  and  replace  it  with  a  corrected
report only changing the number of days supervision.


EPR profile since 1993 reflects the following:

          PERIOD ENDING      OVERALL EVALUATION

            1 Aug 93                     5
            1 Aug 94                     5
            1 Mar 95                     5
            1 Mar 96                     4
            1 Mar 97                     5
            1 Mar 98                     5
           22 Mar 99                     3  Referral
        *  25 Apr 00                     2  Referral

     *  Contested report.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The Chief, Performance Evaluation Section, AFPC/DPPPEP, reviewed  this
application  and  recommended  denial.   The  applicant  received  two
Letters of Reprimand (LOR)  during  the  contested  reporting  period.
Those  LORs  are  two  examples  of  the  applicant’s  poor  judgment,
questionable integrity, and inappropriate behavior  on  and  off-duty.
Furthermore, they support the front-side  markdowns  in  Section  III,
Items, 4 and 5, and comments in Sections VI, Lines 2 and 13.  The  EPR
also documents the applicant’s  excellent  duty  performance  and  job
knowledge.  The Air Force policy  is  that  an  evaluation  report  is
accurate  as  written  when  it  becomes  a  matter  of  record.    To
effectively challenge an EPR, it is necessary to hear from the members
of  the  rating   chain-not   only   for   support,   but   also   for
clarification/explanation.

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

The Chief, Inquiries/AFBCMR Section, AFMPC/DPPPWB, also reviewed  this
application and states the first cycle the EPR closing     25  Apr  00
would normally be considered in the  promotion  process  is  the  01E7
cycle to Master Sergeant (promotion  effective  Aug  01  to  Jul  02).
However, the fact that the EPR is a referral, renders  him  ineligible
for consideration for promotion in accordance with AFI 36-2502, Airman
Promotion Program, Table 1.1, Rule 22, dated     1  Jul  99,  for  the
01E7 cycle.  Individuals with  a  referral  or  “2”  EPR  on  top  are
ineligible for promotion, and regain their promotion eligibility  only
after receiving an EPR with a rating of “3” or higher that closes  out
on or before the Promotion Eligibility Cutoff Date (PECD) for the next
cycle.  Should the report be voided as requested, he could  still  not
be considered  supplementally  as  he  was  also  ineligible  for  the
previous cycle, 00E7, due  to  a  referral  EPR  closing  22  Mar  99.
Therefore, in order for the applicant to be eligible for  supplemental
promotion consideration,  provided  he  is  otherwise  eligible,  (not
ineligible for any of the other reasons outlined in AFI 36-2502, Table
1.1) and recommended by his commander, both EPRs 22 Mar 99 and 25  Apr
00, would have to be voided.

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

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Copies of the Air Force  evaluations  were  forwarded  to  applicant’s
counsel on 30 Mar 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 a thorough review
of the evidence of record  and  applicant’s  submission,  we  are  not
persuaded that the contested EPR should be removed from  his  records.
His and counsel’s contentions are duly noted; however, we do not  find
these assertions, in and by  themselves,  sufficiently  persuasive  to
override the evidence of record.  We note that  during  the  contested
time period, the applicant received  two  (2)  Letters  of  Reprimand.
Therefore, in our opinion the applicant has not established  that  his
actions during the contested reporting  period  did  not  warrant  the
comments made by the evaluators.  In view of  the  above  finding,  we
agree with the opinion and recommendation of the Air Force  and  adopt
their rational as the basis for our conclusion that applicant has  not
been  the  victim  of  an  error  or  injustice.   Therefore,   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 22 May 2001, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:



                 Mr. Richard A. Peterson, Panel Chair
                 Mr. Roscoe Hinton, Jr, Member
                 Mr. Jay H. Jordan, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

      Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 23 Jan 01, w/atchs.
      Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
      Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPPPEP, dated 19 Mar 01.
      Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/DPPPWB, dated 20 Feb 01.
      Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 30 Mar 01.






      RICHARD A. PETERSON
      Panel Chair