RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  01-02350
                       INDEX CODE:  111.02

      APPLICANTS COUNSEL:  None

      SSN        HEARING DESIRED:  None

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

The Airman Performance  Reports  (APRs)/Enlisted  Performance  Reports
(EPRs) for  the periods  closing 17 Feb 82, 11 Jan 90, 15 Dec  90,  27
Apr 91, and 27 Apr 92 be declared void.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The ratings  she  received  on  several  EPRs  were  not  an  accurate
assessment of her performance  and  accomplishments.   She  feels  the
evaluators did not consider pertinent documented information that  was
accessible when preparing her EPRs.

Applicant's complete submission is attached at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant served on active duty from 18 Feb 81 - 15 Aug 92.

The applicant alleges she appealed the  contested  reports  under  the
provisions  of  AFR  31-11,  Correction  of  Airman  and  Officer  and
Evaluation  Reports,  however,  there  are  no  files   available   to
substantiate this.

Applicant's EPR profile reflects the following:

                 PERIOD ENDING               OVERALL EVALUATION

                  *17 Feb 82                       7
                   17 Feb 83                       9
                    2 Nov 83                       9
                    2 Nov 84                       9
                   30 Jun 85                       9
                   30 Jun 86                       9
                   30 Jun 87                       8
                   30 Jun 88                       9
                   11 Jan 89                       9
                                        NEW SYSTEM
                  *11 Jan 90                       3
                  *15 Dec 90                       3
                  *27 Apr 91                       2
                  *27 Apr 92                       4

* Contested reports.

Applicant was voluntarily released from active  duty  on  15  Aug  92,
under the provisions of the Special Separation Benefit.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR STAFF EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPPWB reviewed all the applicant's promotion  considerations  to
staff sergeant and technical sergeant prior  to  her  separation  from
active duty and stated even if the applicant had the APP/EPR  weighted
score of 135.00, her total score would not have increased sufficiently
enough to  meet  the  promotion  cutoff  score  needed  for  promotion
selection for any of the cycles (Exhibit C).

AFPC/DPPPEP states the applicant alleges she filed an appeal under AFR
31-11, Correction of Airman and Officer Evaluation  Reports,  however,
the applicant did not provide a copy of the Evaluation Reports  Appeal
Board (ERAB) decision.  DPPPEP maintains case files  for  three  years
and therefore cannot address the ERAB's decision  in  the  applicant's
appeal.

The applicant's  contention that the reports closing 17 Feb 82, 11 Jan
90, 27 Apr 91 and 27 Apr  92  are  not  accurate  assessments  of  her
performance is duly noted,  however,  Air  Force  policy  is  that  an
evaluation report is accurate as written when it becomes a  matter  of
record.  They further state, to effectively challenge an  EPR,  it  is
imperative to hear from all the members of the rating chain--not  only
for  support,  but  also  for  clarification  and  explanation.    The
applicant has not provided any information or documented support  from
her rating chain on any of the contested reports.  When information is
absent  from  the  rating  chain--documentation  from  other  official
sources,  i.e.,  Inspector  General,  Military  Equal  Opportunity  is
appropriate;  the  applicant   has   not   provided   any   supporting
documentation with this case.

The applicant  also alleges she received a referral EPR closing 27 Apr
91, however, in reviewing her records they  do  not  find  a  referral
memorandum or rebuttal comments attached to  the  EPR  on  file.   The
rater has the final decision in determining whether a report will be a
referral.  Therefore, since the applicant has
not provided support from her evaluators or a  copy  of  the  referral
memorandum or rebuttal comments proving the report was referred,  they
must presume the evaluators and commanders decided not  to  refer  the
report.  There is no requirement to route EPRs with the overall rating
of "2" through the Staff  Judge  Advocate,  or  complete  non-judicial
punishment paperwork.

The applicant feels the EPR that closed out on 27 Apr  91  should  not
have been considered in the promotion cycle, because she had forwarded
that report to the ERAB.  All reports are factored in "as  is"  unless
voided or changed by the ERAB.  Enlisted promotions will give a member
supplemental promotion consideration after the ERAB voids or changes a
report, if the member requests supplemental consideration.

A report is not considered erroneous  or  unfair  because  the  member
believes it is.  There are many factors that may  cause  a  change  in
performance standards, thus producing changes in ratings and comments--
the  member's  ability  to  adapt  to  a  new  position,  station   or
supervisor.  To change a report simply  because  the  applicant  feels
there was no consistency in the reports she received is inappropriate.
 The applicant has only provided her retrospective view of  the  facts
and circumstances, none from any official source, therefore  based  on
information  provided,  DPPPEP  recommends  denying  the   applicant's
request.

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

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR STAFF EVALUATION:

The applicant forwarded an e-mail stating that she  wanted  to  ensure
accurate information pertaining to her case is  being  reviewed.   She
further states that a letter from DPPPWB recommends that  the  appeal,
in reference to the contested EPRs, be denied.  She makes reference to
receiving an evaluation report in Oct 89 and not in Jan  90  and   she
received an annual report in Oct 90.  She received a mandatory EPR  in
92, corresponding with her separation date of  Jul/Aug  92.   She  was
transferring between  stations  in  Apr  92  and  there  may  be  some
confusion because she also  took  some  administrative  leave  between
transfers.  She thinks the Apr 92 date may have been mistakenly placed
in her file (Exhibit F).

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

1.    The applicant has exhausted all remedies  provided  by  existing
law or regulations.

2.    The application was not timely filed;  however,  it  is  in  the
interest of justice to excuse the failure of timely file.

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  notes  that  the
applicant has not submitted  any  supporting  documentation  from  the
various rating chains and has failed to  provide  sufficient  evidence
showing that the contested reports were not  accurate  assessments  as
rendered.  The Board finds no evidence that the  rating  chains  could
not render objective evaluations of the applicant’s performance on the
contested reports.  In view of the above findings,  the  Board  agrees
with the opinion and recommendation of the Air Force and adopts  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 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 15 November 2001, under the provisions of AFI 36-
2603.

            Mr. Henry Romo, Jr., Panel Chairman
            Mr. Clyde L. Williams, Member
            Mr. Ann-Cecile McDermott, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

      Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 9 Aug 01, w/atchs.
      Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
      Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPPPWB, dated 6 Sep 01.
      Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/DPPPEP, dated 13 Sep 01.
      Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 28 Sep 01.
      Exhibit F. Applicant's Response.




                       HENRY ROMO, JR.
                       Panel Chair