RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  01-01724
            INDEX CODE 111.02  111.05
            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  YES

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

The Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) rendered  for  the  period     1
October 1998 to 31 May 1999 be declared void.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The supporting documentation proves  invalid  supervision  during  the
reporting period. He believes that the documentation submitted clearly
proves that contested EPR was unjustifiably written.

He states that Lt B___ was the  Squadron  Section  Commander  and  his
supervisor effective 23  Apr  99.   The  leave  forms  signed  by  her
authorized him to take ordinary leave on two different occasions.  The
airman promotion data verification record (DVR) shows that he  had  5B
EPRs before and after the EPR that closed out 31 May  1999.   The  Air
Force Achievement Medal was from 1 June 1999 - 14 August 2000.

Applicant's complete submission,  with  attachments,  is  attached  at
Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

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

On 2 February 1999, the applicant  was  notified  of  his  commander’s
intent to impose nonjudicial punishment for an  alleged  violation  of
Article 111.  Specifically, the applicant was  accused  of  physically
controlling a passenger car in a reckless manner,  by  running  a  red
light and traveling at  an  excessive  rate  of  speed  to  elude  the
Security Forces personnel attempting to stop  him.   After  consulting
counsel, the applicant waived his right  to  demand  trial  by  court-
martial and accepted nonjudical punishment.

The commander found that  the  applicant  had  committed  the  offense
alleged and imposed punishment of reduction to  the  grade  of  senior
airman and forfeiture of $742.00  pay.   Reduction  to  the  grade  of
senior airman was suspended until 9 August 1999, after which  time  it
would be remitted without further action, unless sooner vacated.

The applicant filed an appeal under the  provisions  of  AFI  36-2401,
Correcting Officer and Enlisted Evaluation Reports,  1  Dec  97.   The
Evaluation Reports Appeal Board (ERAB) denied the application  because
the member did not provide the required support for his contentions.

EPR profile since 1997 reflects the following:

          PERIOD ENDING      OVERALL EVALUATION

           30 Sep 97                     5
           30 Sep 98                     5
       *   31 May 99                     2
           23 Dec 99                     5
           31 Jul 00                     5
           31 Jul 01                     5

     *  Contested report.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPPWB states that  the  first  time  the  contested  report  was
considered in the promotion process was cycle 00E6 to TSgt  (promotion
effective 1 Aug 00 - 1 Jul 00).  Should the Board void the  report  as
requested, the applicant will be entitled  to  supplemental  promotion
consideration beginning with the 00E6 cycle.  He  will  not  become  a
select for this cycle but would be selected for the 01E6 cycle pending
a favorable data verification check  and  the  recommendation  of  the
commander.

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

AFPC/DPPPEP recommends the AFBCMR deny the applicant’s request to void
the report.  In the ERAB application, the member provided a memorandum
from SMSgt K___ stating he was the acting  first  sergeant  when  this
report closed out.  He further states that he held a meeting with  the
rater and the applicant to discuss the report.  This indicates that Lt
M___ was the applicant’s rater during the timeframe listed on the EPR.
 Without validation from anyone in the rating  scheme,  his  dates  of
supervision cannot be determined.

The  commander  determines  the  rating  chain,  therefore,  the  ERAB
requested a memorandum from the commander stating the from and through
dates of Lt M___’s supervision.  Due to the conflicting documentation,
this  memorandum  is  needed  to  clearly  show  if  the   rater   had
insufficient supervision.  This statement was never  provided  to  the
ERAB and is not included in the AFBCMR appeal.

The computer-generated products, provided by the applicant, are  after
the closeout date of  the  contested  report.   They  understand  that
sometimes the change of reporting officials (CROs)  are  updated  into
the Personnel Data System after  the  fact--which  could  support  the
applicant’s claim.  However, without a memorandum from the  commander,
this cannot be confirmed. While the SURF reflects Lt B___’s duty title
as Squadron Section Commander, it does not verify a  CRO  occurred  on
that same date.   Additionally,  the  leave  forms  provided  are  not
adequate source documents to verify supervision.  The Air Force policy
is that an evaluation report is accurate as written when it becomes  a
matter of record.  The applicant has not proven the report was written
with insufficient supervision.

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

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant reviewed the evaluations and provided  a  response  with
attachments, which is attached at Exhibit F.

_________________________________________________________________

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 the applicant’s submission, we  are  not
persuaded that the EPR closing 31 May  1999  should  be  voided.   The
applicant’s   supporting   documentation   and   statement   are   not
sufficiently persuasive that he  was  evaluated  by  an  inappropriate
rating chain for the period 1 October 1998 through 31  May  1999.   We
note the applicant  has  not  provided  statements  from  any  of  the
evaluators  in  the  rating  chain  concerning   this   report.    His
contentions  are  duly  noted;  however,  we   do   not   find   these
uncorroborated  assertions,  in  and   by   themselves,   sufficiently
persuasive to override the rationale provided by the  Air  Force.   We
therefore agree with the recommendations of the Air  Force  and  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.  Therefore, we find no compelling  basis  to
recommend granting the relief sought.

4.    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   issues   involved.
Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorably considered.

_________________________________________________________________

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 8 November 2001, under the provisions of AFI  36-
2603:

                 Mr. Jackson A. Hauslein, Jr., Panel Chair
                 Mr. John B. E. Smith, Member
                 Mr. Thomas J. Topolski, Jr., Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

      Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 19 Jun 01, w/atchs.
      Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
      Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPPPWB, dated 2 Aug 01.
      Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/DPPPEP, dated 28 Aug 01.
      Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 31 Aug 01.
      Exhibit F. Applicant's response, undated, w/atchs.





      JACKSON A. HAUSLEIN, JR
      Panel Chair