RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  02-02659
            INDEX CODE:  131.05

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  YES


_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

The Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) rendered for  the  period  14 December
1996 to 2 March 1998, be declared void.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

His first version of the contested EPR (175 days of  supervision)  contained
fraudulent information.  He brought this to the  attention  of  his  section
commander who removed the report, rewrote the report, and reinserted  a  new
version of the report (120 days of supervision) without authority  (AFI  36-
2603), thus perpetuating the fraud.  As a result of the commander’s  action,
he tampered with the applicant’s right to due process.   Absent  his  copies
of both EPRs, the Air Force couldn’t confirm which  was  the  true  official
report that is now a permanent matter of his unit  personnel  records  group
(UPRG).  Through a lapse in the historical recording of  personnel  records,
on behalf of the Air Force, it is now difficult, if not  impossible  to  use
his own UPRG to defend himself  against  improprieties  caused  by  the  Air
Force.

In support of his appeal, the applicant provided a personal statement,  EPRs
closing 2 March 1998, Special Order TE-0309, dated 18 April  2002,  and  the
ERAB decision, dated 12 May 1999.

Applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is 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 and the appeal was considered and  denied  by  the  Evaluation  Reports
Appeal Board (ERAB).

EPR profile since 1995 reflects the following:

      PERIOD ENDING    EVALUATION OF POTENTIAL

            21 Jan 95        5
            13 Dec 95        5
            13 Dec 96        5
       *  2 Mar 98           3
             2 Mar 99        5
             2 Mar 00        5
            21 Jan 01        4
            21 Jan 02        4

* Contested report

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPPEP recommended denial.  They indicate that the  applicant  contends
the first version of the EPR he  viewed  contained  fraudulent  information.
Specifically, that it stated the number of  days  of  supervision  was  175.
The applicant does not state where he viewed the first version, but for  the
purpose of this appeal they will assume it was in his UPRG.  He states  when
he brought the error to the attention of the section commander, the  section
commander corrected the report and reinserted  it  without  authority.   The
applicant did not provide any evidence to show the section commander  placed
the new document into the UPRG  and  the  Military  Personnel  Flight  (MPF)
personnel stated to the ERAB that no other report was ever filed.

Correcting the number of days of supervision is  considered  a  minor  error
IAW AFI 36-2401, Table 2, Rule 3 and does not invalidate  the  report.   The
authority to correct this type of error is the MPF Evaluations Office.   Had
the applicant  addressed  the  issue  with  the  MPF,  the  MPF  would  have
contacted the section commander, ensured the 120  days  of  supervision  was
the  correct  information,  and  then  changed  the  report   appropriately.
Therefore, the applicant’s request to void the report is without merit.

Air Force policy is that an evaluation report is considered a  working  copy
until it becomes a matter of record.  The  applicant  did  not  provide  any
evidence that the EPR was corrected  inappropriately.   The  differences  on
both reports are only administrative  in  nature.   As  such,  even  if  the
applicant  had  proven  his  allegation  (which  they  strongly  believe  he
hasn’t), it would still not be appropriate to  void  the  contested  report.
The “due process”  the  applicant  claims  the  commander  substituting  the
reports denied him would have been to appeal to  the  ERAB.   Based  on  the
administrative nature of the changes, the only relief the  ERAB  would  have
granted the applicant would be to substitute the reports - not void the  one
on file.

The evaluation is at Exhibit C.

AFPC/DPPPWB  deferred  their  recommendation  to   HQ   AFPC/DPPPEP.    They
indicated that  the  first  time  the  contested  report  was  used  in  the
promotion process was cycle 98E5 to staff  (promotions  effective  September
1998 - August 1999).  Should the AFBCMR  remove  the  report  as  requested,
providing he is otherwise  eligible,  the  applicant  will  be  entitled  to
supplemental  promotion  consideration  beginning  with  cycle  98E5.    The
applicant will become a select for the 98E5 cycle if the AFBCMR  grants  the
request pending a favorable data verification and the recommendation of  the
commander.

The evaluation is at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

On 20 September 2002, copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded  to
the applicant for review and response within thirty (30) days.  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 not timely filed; however, it is in  the  interest
of justice to excuse the failure to timely file.

3.    Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to  demonstrate  the
existence of an error or injustice.  After reviewing the evidence  submitted
with this  appeal,  we  note  that  the  applicant  has  not  submitted  any
persuasive  documentation  to  support  his  contention  that  the  EPR  was
corrected inappropriately.  In  view  of  the  above  findings,  we  are  in
agreement with the comments and recommendation of the Air  Force  and  adopt
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.

4.    The applicant's case is adequately documented  and  it  has  not  been
shown that a personal appearance with or  without  counsel  will  materially
add to our understanding of the issue(s) involved.  Therefore,  the  request
for a hearing is not favorably considered.

_________________________________________________________________

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 AFBCMR Docket Number  02-02659
in Executive Session on 7 November 2002, under the  provisions  of  AFI  36-
2603:

            Mr. Wayne R. Gracie, Panel Chair
            Mr. James W. Russell III, Member
            Mr. Thomas J. Topolski, Jr., Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 15 August 2002, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPEP, dated 5 September 2002.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPWB, dated 6 September 2002.
   Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 20 September 2002.




                                WAYNE R. GRACIE
                                Panel Chair