RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  00-00234
            INDEX CODE:  111.02

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO


_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

Her Enlisted Performance Report (EPR), rendered for the  period  1 Oct
98 through 30 Sep 99, be declared void and removed from her records.
_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The Referral EPR does not match the job performance that is  annotated
on the report, making it inaccurate and unjust.

Too much emphasis was placed on a Letter of  Admonition  (LOA);  there
was bias  by  the  additional  rater;  and,  the  number  of  days  of
supervision is incorrect.

In support of her request, the applicant submits a personal statement,
copies of the LOA with her rebuttal to the LOA, the Evaluation Reports
Appeal Board (ERAB) decision, statements supporting unfair  treatment,
and additional documents associated  with  the  issues  cited  in  her
contentions.  The applicant’s complete submission,  with  attachments,
is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Information extracted from the Personnel Data System (PDS) reveals the
applicant’s Total Active Federal Military Service Date (TAFMSD) as  30
Oct 85.  She is currently serving on  active  duty  in  the  grade  of
technical sergeant (E-6), with an effective date and date of rank of 1
May 99.

Information extracted from the applicant’s submission reveals that she
received a Letter of Admonition (LOA) on 15 Mar 99  and  a  Letter  of
Reprimand (LOR) on 2 Sep 99.

Applicant's EPR profile for the last 8 reporting periods follows:

            Period Ending    Evaluation

              28 Oct 95      5 - Immediate Promotion (as E-5)

              28 Oct 96      5

              28 Oct 97      5

              30 Sep 98      5

            * 30 Sep 99      2 - Not Recommended At This Time (as E-6)

               9 Apr 00      5

               1 Nov 00      5
               1 Nov 01      5

* Contested report

The applicant’s submission contains  a  Letter  of  Evaluation  (LOE),
rendered for the period 4 May 99 through 1 Sep 99, for being TDY 60 or
more days (refer to Exhibit A).

A similar appeal by the applicant, under Air Force  Instruction  (AFI)
36-2401, was considered and denied by  the  Evaluation  Report  Appeal
Board (ERAB) on 26 Jun 01.
_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

HQ AFPC/DPPPEP recommends the application be  denied.   DPPPEP  stated
that the applicant did not provide any evidence that the contested EPR
is erroneous or unjust.  The number of days of supervision on the  EPR
is 284,  indicating  that  some  days  had  been  subtracted.   DPPPEP
indicated that  without  travel  vouchers,  copies  of  leave  control
rosters or any other documentation to show absences of 30  consecutive
days or more during the reporting period, it would  be  impossible  to
determine the exact number that should  be  on  the  EPR.   Since  the
Inspector General (IG) complaint was unfounded, bias by the additional
rater is not proven.  Raters are obliged to consider incidents such as
LOAs when assessing performance and  potential.   The  HQ  AFPC/DPPPEP
evaluation is at Exhibit C.


HQ AFPC/DPPPWB stated that the first time  the  contested  report  was
considered in the promotion process was Cycle 01E7 to master  sergeant
(E-7), promotions effective Aug 01 - Jul 02.  Should the Board upgrade
the overall rating or void the report in its entirety,  providing  she
is otherwise eligible, the applicant will be entitled to  supplemental
promotion consideration commencing with Cycle 01E7.  It is noted  that
the applicant will not become a selectee  for  promotion  during  this
cycle if the Board grants her request - she  missed  selection  by  30
points.  The contested report will not  be  considered  again  in  the
promotion process until Cycle 02E7, promotions  effective  May/Jun  02
timeframe.  The HQ AFPC/DPPPWB evaluation is at Exhibit D.
_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to applicant on  30
November 2001 for review and response.  As of this date,  no  response
has been received by this office (Exhibit E).
_________________________________________________________________

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.  Evaluators are required
to assess a ratee’s performance, honestly and to  the  best  of  their
ability, based on their observance  of  an  individual’s  performance.
The documents provided  with  the  applicant’s  submission  have  been
noted.  However, they do not, in the Board majority’s opinion, support
a  finding  that  the  evaluators  were  unable  to  render   unbiased
evaluations of the applicant’s performance or that the ratings on  the
contested report were based on factors  other  than  applicant’s  duty
performance during the contested  rating  period.   Additionally,  the
Board majority  found  no  evidence  that  the  contested  report  was
prepared contrary to the governing Air Force instruction.   In  regard
to the days of supervision, although there  appears  to  be  a  slight
discrepancy, insufficient evidence has been presented to  substantiate
the applicant’s contention that she was  TDY  a  total  of  120  days.
Notwithstanding, the rater did have the necessary 120 days  needed  to
consider and accomplish the performance report in compliance with  Air
Force policy.  In view of the foregoing,  the  Board  majority  agrees
with the comments and recommendation  of  the  appropriate  Air  Force
office (HQ AFPC/DPPPEP).  Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the
contrary, the majority of the  Board  finds  no  compelling  basis  to
recommend favorable action on applicant’s request.
_________________________________________________________________

RECOMMENDATION OF THE BOARD:

A majority of the  panel  finds  insufficient  evidence  of  error  or
injustice and recommends the application be denied.
_________________________________________________________________

The following members of the  Board  considered  this  application  in
Executive Session on 3 April 2002, under the  provisions  of  AFI  36-
2603:

                  Mr. Charles E. Bennett, Panel Chair
                  Mr. Joseph A. Roj, Member
                  Mr. Thomas J. Topolski Jr., Member

By a majority vote, the members voted  to  deny  applicant's  request.
Mr. Bennett voted to grant the applicant's request but did not  desire
to submit a minority report.  The following documentary  evidence  was
considered in connection with AFBCMR Docket Number 00-00234

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 24 Oct 01, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPPEP, dated 19 Nov 01.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPPWB, dated 14 Nov 01.
   Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 30 Nov 01.




                                   CHARLES E. BENNETT
                                   Panel Chair


MEMORANDUM   FOR     THE   EXECUTIVE   DIRECTOR,   AIR   FORCE   BOARD   FOR
CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS (AFBCMR)

SUBJECT:  APPLICANT

      I have carefully considered the circumstances of this case and do not
agree with the majority members of the panel that the applicant’s request
for voidance of the Enlisted Performance Report (EPR), closing 30 September
1999, should be denied.

      In arriving at my decision, I note that the applicant was
sufficiently punished for two incidents of misconduct by being given a
Letter of Admonition and a Letter of Reprimand.  In addition, it was noted
that the author of the Letter of Evaluation (LOE), rendered during the
period she was on temporary duty (TDY), 4 May through 1 September 1999,
attests to the applicant’s excellent duty performance during this time.  I
also find that the applicant’s nomination and award of the Joint Service
Achievement Medal (1OLC), during the contested rating period, reflects a
higher quality of performance than is reflected on the contested report.
Further, I note that the contested report is inconsistent with the
applicant’s overall record of performance.  Based on the totality of the
circumstances in this case, I believe the evaluators of the contested
report were exceedingly harsh by placing undue emphasis on two isolated
incidents.  Inasmuch as the applicant was appropriately punished for her
misconduct, I find the contested report to be excessively severe.

      Based on the foregoing, and in an effort to offset any possibility of
an injustice, I believe the benefit of any doubt should be resolved in the
applicant’s favor by voiding the contested EPR.





JOE G. LINEBERGER

Director

Air Force Review Boards Agency

AFBCMR 00-00234




MEMORANDUM FOR THE CHIEF OF STAFF

      Having received and considered the recommendation of the Air Force
Board for Correction of Military Records and under the authority of Section
1552, Title 10, United States Code (70A Stat 116), it is directed that:

      The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force
relating to APPLICANT be corrected to show that the Enlisted Performance
Report, AF Form 910, rendered for the period 1 October 1998 through
30 September 1999, be, and hereby is, declared void and removed from her
records.




                                        JOE G. LINEBERGER
                                        Director
                                        Air Force Review Boards Agency