RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  01-01751
                       INDEX CODE:  111.02

      APPLICANT  COUNSEL:  None

      SSN        HEARING DESIRED:  None

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

The Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) covering the rating period 2 Jan
99 through 1 Jan 00 be removed from his records.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

Due to the infrequent verbal contact between him and his  raters,  his
immediate supervisor gave him the impression that he was pleased  with
his (applicant's) performance, and that he was on the right track  for
obtaining a high rating.  His performance feedback form reflected  the
need for little or no improvement.

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)  returned  the  application
without action  because  the  member  did  not  provide  the  required
documentation to support his contentions.

EPR profile as a staff sergeant reflects the following:

                 PERIOD ENDING               OVERALL EVALUATION

                    1 Jan 99                       5
                   *1 Jan 00                       3
                    2 Oct 00                       5

* Contested report.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR STAFF EVALUATION:

The  Chief,  Inquiries/AFBCMR  Section,  AFPC/DPPPWB,  reviewed   this
application and stated the  applicant's  EPR  was  considered  in  the
promotion process for cycle 01E6 to technical sergeant.  They  further
stated that if the Board voids the EPR in its  entirety,  or  upgrades
the overall rating, providing the applicant is otherwise eligible, the
applicant would be entitled to  supplemental  consideration  beginning
with the 01E6 cycle.  The applicant would not be a select for the 01E6
cycle if the request is granted, but he would become a select for 02E6
promotion cycle pending favorable data verification and recommendation
of the commander (Exhibit C).

The Chief, Performance Evaluation Section, AFPC/DPPPEP, reviewed  this
application and states the applicant submitted an appeal to the  ERAB.
The ERAB returned the request without action because the applicant did
not provide the required documentation to support his contentions.

The applicant is comparing the ratings  on  the  performance  feedback
worksheet (PFW) with the markings on the EPR.   This  is  not  a  fair
comparison; because  a  direct  correlation  between  the  information
provided on the PFW and the assessments on the evaluation report  does
not necessarily exist.

Although  the  applicant  states  he  provided  his  rater  with   key
information  for   his   EPR   and   he   alleges   that   significant
accomplishments  were  not  in  his  evaluation  report,   the   rater
determines the content of the evaluation report.

Air Force policy is that an evaluation report is accurate  as  written
when it becomes a matter of record.  When challenging an  EPR,  it  is
important to hear  from  the  member’s  rating  chain,  not  only  for
support, but for clarification and explanation  of  the  issues.   The
applicant has not provided information or a show of support  from  his
rating  chain.   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 20 Jul 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
unpersuaded that relief should be  granted.   Applicant’s  contentions
are duly noted; however, we do not find these assertions,  in  and  by
themselves, sufficiently persuasive to override the rationale provided
by the offices of the  Air  Force.   The  applicant  did  not  provide
persuasive evidence to substantiate his contention that the  contested
report was not an accurate reflection of his performance.  The fact is
that the applicant had an incident during  the  reporting  period  and
each evaluator has the obligation when writing the performance  report
to consider any incidents of  substandard  duty  performance  and  the
significance of the substandard performance in assessing  the  service
member's overall  performance  and  potential.   On  balance,  we  are
persuaded the contested  report  is  an  accurate  assessment  of  the
applicant's  performance  during  the  contested  time   period.    We
therefore adopt the Air Force's 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.  Hence,  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 29 August 2001, under the provisions of  AFI  36-
2603.

                 Mr. Frederick R. Beaman III, Panel Chair
                 Mr. Roscoe Hinton, Jr., Member
                 Mr. E. David Hoard, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

      Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 7 Jun 01, w/atchs.
      Exhibit B. Applicant's Enlisted Performance Reports.
      Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPPPWB, dated 10 Jul 01.
      Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/DPPPEP, dated 16 Jul 01.
      Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 20 Jul 01.




                       FREDERICK R. BEAMAN III
                       Panel Chair