RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBERS:  02-00864
            INDEX CODE 111.02
            COUNSEL:  None

            HEARING DESIRED:  No

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

The Senior Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) closing 16 Mar 01 reflect
a senior rater indorsement.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The rater and additional rater were led to believe he did not  qualify
for a senior rater indorsement.   He  provides  supporting  statements
from the rater and additional rater of the EPR. The  additional  rater
indicates she was under the impression the applicant didn’t warrant  a
senior rater indorsement because he had failed to complete Senior  NCO
Academy. The rater indicates this was one of the first senior NCO EPRs
she had ever written and she had no idea  that  not  having  a  senior
rater indorsement could have a negative impact.  Both  note  that  the
applicant always earned a senior rater indorsement when  eligible  and
request the error be corrected.

The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is  at  Exhibit
A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant entered active duty  on  22  Aug  78  and  is  currently
serving in  the  grade  of  master  sergeant.  During  the  period  in
question, he was the customer service chief with the 374th Comptroller
Squadron at  Yokota  AB,  Japan.   His  senior  NCO  evaluation  brief
reflects that he has completed Senior NCO Academy. With the  exception
of the contested report,  the  applicant  has  received  senior  rater
indorsements on his EPRs starting with the report closing 5 Nov 97.

The remaining  relevant  facts  pertaining  to  this  application  are
contained in the applicant's military records (Exhibit B) and  in  the
letters prepared by the appropriate offices of the Air Force (Exhibits
C and D).

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

HQ AFPC/DPPPWB notes that, in accordance with policy and regulation, a
member  normally  will   not   be   granted   supplemental   promotion
consideration  if  the  error  or  omission  appeared  on   the   Data
Verification Record (DVR) or in the Unit Personnel Record Group (UPRG)
and no appropriate corrective or follow up action was taken before the
original board convened. The purpose is to reduce the number of “after
the fact” changes that are initiated in an  effort  to  get  a  second
promotion opportunity. They confirmed with HQ AFPC/DPPPE on 21 Mar  02
that the applicant did not pursue a change to  this  EPR  through  the
Evaluation Reports Appeal Board (ERAB). However, he was  building  his
case to the AFBCMR prior to 23 Jan 02, the date  the  promotion  board
convened for the 02E8 cycle, the first cycle in  which  the  contested
EPR was considered. DPPPWB believes the  circumstances  of  this  case
warrant supplemental promotion consideration, if approved.

A complete copy of the evaluation, with attachment, is at Exhibit C.

HQ AFPC/DPPPEP asserts that, regardless of the rater’s and  additional
rater’s intentions, the applicant has not provided a  memorandum  from
the senior rater acknowledging a  willingness  to  indorse  this  EPR.
Furthermore, the applicant failed to provide a substitute EPR  in  the
event the AFBCMR approves this appeal. Without senior  rater  support,
approval is not recommended.

A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit D.


_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Complete copies of the Air Force evaluations  were  forwarded  to  the
applicant on 19 Apr 02 for review and comment within 30  days.   In  a
letter dated 16 May 02, the applicant requested a 30-day extension. On
29 May 02, the AFBCMR Staff advised him that extensions of  time  were
no longer possible because of Congressionally mandated timelines.  The
applicant was invited to temporarily withdraw his case  if  he  needed
more time, and was asked to advise the Board of his decision within 30
days. However, as of this date, this office has received  no  response
or additional documentation from the applicant.

_________________________________________________________________

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 error or injustice. After a thorough  review  of  the
evidence  of  record  and  the  applicant’s  submission,  we  are  not
persuaded at this time that the contested EPR  should  be  amended  to
reflect a senior rater indorsement. We are persuaded that this  appeal
is not merely an attempt for a second promotion opportunity since  the
applicant was building his case before the  promotion  board  convened
for the 02E8 cycle. We also note the applicant  had  completed  Senior
NCO Academy and, except for the report in  question,  received  senior
rater indorsements  on  his  EPRs  since  5  Nov  97.  The  rater  and
additional rater support his appeal.  However, the applicant  has  not
provided a statement from the senior rater acknowledging a willingness
to indorse the contested EPR  or  a  reaccomplished  report  with  the
senior rater’s indorsement. He requested an extension of time in order
to obtain the senior rater’s indorsement and the AFBCMR Staff  advised
him on 29 May 02 that he could temporarily  withdraw  his  case  since
extensions are no longer granted. Regrettably, the  applicant  neither
withdrew his case temporarily nor provided  documents  indicating  the
senior rater’s support.  Therefore, at this time we have  no  recourse
but to deny the appeal.   However,  should  the  applicant  provide  a
reaccomplished EPR with the senior rater’s indorsement,  we  would  be
inclined to favorably reconsider his application.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:

The  applicant  be  notified  that  the  evidence  presented  did  not
demonstrate the existence of 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 August 2002 under the provisions  of  AFI  36-
2603:

                 Mr. Richard A. Peterson, Panel Chair
                 Mr. Laurence M. Groner, Member
                 Mr. George Franklin, Member

The following documentary evidence relating to AFBCMR Docket Number 02-
00864 was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 26 Feb 02, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPPWB, dated 21 Mar 02, w/atch.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPPEP, dated 8 Apr 02.
   Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 19 Apr 02.
   Exhibit F.  Letter, Applicant, dated 16 May 02.
   Exhibit G.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 29 May 02.





                                   RICHARD A. PETERSON
                                   Panel Chair