RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  02-01278
            INDEX CODE:  111.02


            COUNSEL:  NONE


            HEARING DESIRED:  NO


_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His  Enlisted  Performance  Report  (EPR),  rendered  for  the  period
9 September 1999 through  8  September  2000,  be  declared  void  and
removed from his records.
_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

Undue emphasis was placed on his Unfavorable  Information  File  (UIF)
for financial irresponsibility.  Since the UIF, Letter  of  Counseling
(LOC) and Letter of Reprimand (LOR) should not have been administered,
the Referral EPR is unjustified.

The contested report was not referred back to him after the additional
rater added new derogatory information.

In support of his request, the applicant submits a copy of his AFI 36-
2401 application, which includes a personal statement,  the  contested
Referral EPR, with rebuttal, and additional documents associated  with
the  issues  cited  in  his  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  10
Oct 91.  He is currently serving on active duty in the grade of  staff
sergeant (E-5), with an effective date and date of rank of 1  Aug  97.
The following is a  resume  of  his  EPR  ratings  subsequent  to  his
promotion to that grade.

            Period Ending    Evaluation

              24 Jan 98      5 - Immediate Promotion
               7 Oct 98      5
               8 Sep 99      5
             * 8 Sep 00      3 - Consider for Promotion
               8 Sep 01      4 - Ready for Promotion

* Contested Referral Report

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 23 Feb 01 (refer to Exhibit A).

The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application, extracted
from the applicant’s military records, are  contained  in  the  letter
prepared by the appropriate office of the Air Force at Exhibit C.
_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

HQ AFPC/DPPPEP recommends the application be  denied.   DPPPEP  stated
that, during the contested reporting period, the applicant received  a
Letter of Counseling (LOC), dated 30 Dec 99, and a Letter of Reprimand
(LOR), dated 22 Jun 00, for “isolated incidents.”   DPPPEP  referenced
the decision of the Evaluation  Reports  Appeal  Board  (ERAB),  which
states that “Evaluators are obligated to  consider  incidences,  their
frequency, and periods of  substandard  performance.”   DPPPEP  stated
that the additional rater’s comments in Section VI  of  the  contested
report  do  not  add  new  derogatory  information;   therefore,   the
additional rater was not required to refer the report to the  ratee  a
second time.  With respect to the rater’s comments in Section V,  Line
13, of the contested report, the comment on the report identifies  the
poor management of finances as the underlying conduct.  Therefore, the
comment is not vague or nonspecific.  Should the Board  determine  the
UIF was unjust, DPPPEP recommends the portion of Section V,  Line  13,
that reads “that ultimately led to a UIF” be voided from  the  report.
The remainder of Section VI, Line 13, should remain, as  well  as  the
referral documentation and Section VII, Additional  Rater’s  Comments.
A complete copy of this evaluation is appended at Exhibit C.


HQ AFPC/DPPPWB stated that the first time the contested  report  would
have been considered in  the  promotion  process  was  Cycle  01E6  to
technical sergeant (E-6),  promotions  effective  Aug  01  -  Jul  02.
However, since the report was a referral, the applicant was ineligible
for promotion consideration during that cycle.  Should the Board  void
the report in its entirety, providing he is  otherwise  eligible,  the
applicant will be entitled  to  supplemental  promotion  consideration
commencing with Cycle 01E6.  They defer to the  recommendation  of  HQ
AFPC/DPPPEP.  A complete copy of this evaluation, with attachment,  is
appended at Exhibit D.
_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to applicant on  28
June 2002 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 error or injustice.  The applicant contends that  the
EPR should be removed from  his  record  because  undue  emphasis  was
placed on his UIF for financial irresponsibility.  In this respect, we
note that the evidence provided indicates the applicant had  financial
difficulties during the contested rating period and that he worked  to
resolve his  financial  problems.   With  regard  to  the  UIF  issue,
evidence has not been presented which would lead us  to  believe  that
the determinations by the applicant’s commander to issue an LOR and to
establish a UIF were improper or contrary to  the  provisions  of  the
governing instructions under which they were effected.  We  have  seen
no compelling evidence indicating that the  information  presented  to
the commander was erroneous or that by taking the actions he did,  the
commander abused his discretionary authority.   In  addition,  we  are
constrained to note that 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.   We  have  noted   the
documents provided with the applicant’s submission.  However, they  do
not, in our 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 performance during the contested rating period.  There  is
no indication in the record before  us  that  the  applicant’s  rating
chain did not have reasonable  information  available  concerning  the
applicant’s performance during the contested rating period on which to
base a reasonably accurate assessment.   With  regard  to  applicant’s
contention that the contested report should have been referred back to
him, we did not find that the additional rater’s  comments  added  any
new significant information to the contested report.  Additionally, we
found no evidence that the contested report was prepared  contrary  to
the governing instruction.  In view of the foregoing and since we were
unable to conclude that the UIF was erroneous or unjust,  we  find  no
compelling basis to recommend  favorable  action  on  the  applicant’s
request.
_________________________________________________________________

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 Docket  Number  02-01278
in Executive Session on 15 August 2002, under the provisions of AFI 36-
2603:

                  Mr. Thomas S. Markiewicz, Vice Chair
                  Mr. Billy Baxter, Member
                  Mr. Philip Sheuerman, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 1 Apr 02, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPPEP, dated 17 Jun 02.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPPWB, dated 12 Jun 02, w/atch.
   Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 28 Jun 02.




                                   THOMAS S. MARKIEWICZ
                                   Vice Chair