RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2003-00215
            INDEX CODE: 111.05

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO


_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

The Enlisted Performance Report (EPR)  rendered  for  the  period  3 January
2001 through 2 January 2002, be declared void.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He fails to understand how an EPR can have the  following  bullet  statement
without any justification, “Although an  extremely  hard  worker,  displayed
several lapses in judgment this reporting period.”  He did not  receive  any
memos  or  letters  of  counseling  throughout  the  reporting  period.   He
believes the EPR closing 2 January 2002 was written based on an  Article  15
he received.

In support of his appeal,  the  applicant  provided  a  personal  statement,
Evaluation Reports Appeal Board (ERAB) Decision, dated 11 October 2002,  the
contested EPR closing 2 January 2002, AF Form 3070,  Record  of  Nonjudicial
Punishment Proceedings, dated 17 January 2002, a letter from the  additional
rater of the contested report, dated 10 July 2002, and other documentation.

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
senior master 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).  They indicated that retrospective views do  not  carry
the weight of the initial assessment made when the facts  and  circumstances
were fresh in the evaluator’s  mind.   Since  the  additional  rater  merely
concurred with the rater, and the rater is  not  heard  from,  it  would  be
impossible to state exactly what impacted the rater’s assessment.

On 17 January 2002, the applicant was notified of his commander's intent  to
impose nonjudicial punishment upon him for the following:

      On or about 18 June  2001,  with  intent  to  deceive,  he  signed  an
official record, which signature was false in that he was  not  a  certified
dental technician, and was then known by him to be so false.

      On or about 26 November 2001, with intent to deceive,  he  signed  his
name on an official record,  in  a  section  designated  only  for  licensed
dentists or Certified Dental Technicians, which signature was false in  that
he was not a Certified Dental Technician nor a  licensed  dentist,  and  was
then known by him to be so false.

On 24 January 2002, after consulting  with  counsel,  applicant  waived  his
right to a trial by  court-martial,  requested  a  personal  appearance  and
submitted a written presentation.

On 31 January 2002, he was found guilty by his  commander  who  imposed  the
following punishment: a forfeiture of $250.00 pay per month for 2 months.

The  applicant  appealed  the  punishment  and  on  26  February  2002,  the
commander granted the applicant’s appeal.  The Article 15 was not  filed  in
his Unfavorable Information File (UIF).

EPR profile since 1996 reflects the following:

      PERIOD ENDING    EVALUATION OF POTENTIAL

             2 Jan 96        5
             2 Jan 97        5
             2 Jan 98        5
             2 Jan 99        5
          2 Jan 00           5
             2 Jan 01        5
        * 2 Jan 02           4

* Contested report

_________________________________________________________________







AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPPE recommended  denying  the  applicant’s  request  to  void  his  2
January 2002 EPR; however, they recommend the  last  bullet  in  Section  V,
rater’s comments, be removed from the  report.   This  will  leave  in-place
what the rater determined to be an accurate assessment  of  the  applicant’s
performance at the time the report was rendered.  As  already  indicated  by
the additional rater, he concurred with the assessment at that  time.   They
indicated that Air Force policy is that an evaluation report is accurate  as
written when it becomes a matter of record.  As previously indicated by  the
ERAB, retrospective view of the additional rater months  after  the  initial
assessment does not carry the weight of when  the  facts  and  circumstances
were fresh in the evaluator’s mind.

The evaluation is at Exhibit C.

AFPC/DPPPWB defers to the recommendation  of  AFPC/DPPPWB.   They  indicated
that  the  applicant  petitioned  to  have  the  EPR  removed  through   the
Evaluation Reports Appeal Board (ERAB) on 8 August 2002, prior to the  board
convening for the 02E9 cycle (15 October 2002), and was denied.   The  first
cycle the contested EPR was used in the promotion process was cycle 02E9  to
Chief Master  Sergeant  (promotions  effective  January  -  December  2003).
Should the AFBCMR void the  report  as  requested,  the  applicant  will  be
entitled to supplemental consideration for the 02E9 cycle  to  chief  master
sergeant (CMSgt).

The evaluation is at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

On 2 May 2003, copies of the Air Force evaluations  were  forwarded  to  the
applicant for review and response within 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 timely filed.

3.    Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to  demonstrate  the
existence of error or injustice.   The  applicant  requests  the  report  be
voided, asserting that during the rating  period  he  did  not  receive  any
letters of  counseling.   The  additional  rater  of  the  contested  report
indicates that the rating  chain  was  influenced  by  the  pending  charges
against the applicant and that the report should be voided, adding that  all
he did was to concur with the rater.  However, no statement from  the  rater
has been provided indicating that the pending Article 15 was the sole  basis
for the overall “4” rating the applicant received, or that this was  not  an
accurate assessment of the  applicant’s  performance  during  the  contested
time  period.   Therefore,  we  find  no  compelling  basis  upon  which  to
recommend granting the requested relief.

4.    Notwithstanding the above findings, after reviewing  the  evidence  of
record, we are persuaded that the contested  report  should  be  amended  by
removing the last bullet in Section V of  the  rater’s  comments.   We  note
that these comments would have made the report a referral  report;  however,
the report was never referred to the applicant.  Therefore, the Board is  of
the opinion that these comments should be removed from the contested  report
and that he be provided supplemental  consideration  for  promotion  to  the
grade of chief master sergeant.  In view of the foregoing, and in an  effort
to offset any possibility of an injustice, we believe the records should  be
corrected to the extent indicated below.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD RECOMMENDS 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 911, rendered for the period 3 January 2001 through 2 January 2002,  be
amended in Section V, Rater’s Comments, by deleting the  line  “Although  an
extremely hard worker, displayed several lapses in judgement this  reporting
period.”

It  is  further  recommended  that  applicant   be   provided   supplemental
consideration for promotion to the grade of chief master sergeant  beginning
with cycle 02E9.

If AFPC discovers any adverse factors during or subsequent  to  supplemental
consideration that are separate and  apart,  and  unrelated  to  the  issues
involved in  this  application,  that  would  have  rendered  the  applicant
ineligible for the  promotion,  such  information  will  be  documented  and
presented to the  board  for  a  final  determination  on  the  individual’s
qualification for the promotion.








If  supplemental  promotion  consideration  results  in  the  selection  for
promotion to the higher grade, immediately after such promotion the  records
shall be corrected to show that he was promoted to the higher grade  on  the
date of rank established by  the  supplemental  promotion  and  that  he  is
entitled to all pay, allowances, and benefits  of  such  grade  as  of  that
date.

_________________________________________________________________

The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket Number  BC-2003-
00215 in Executive Session on 12 June 2003, under the provisions of AFI  36-
2603:

            Mr. Thomas S. Markiewicz, Vice Chair
            Mr. Joseph A. Roj, Member
            Ms. Cheryl Jacobson, Member

All members voted to correct the records,  as  recommended.   The  following
documentary evidence was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 10 January 2003, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPE, dated 15 April 2003.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPWB, dated 15 April 2003.
   Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 2 May 2003.




                 THOMAS S. MARKIEWICZ
                 Vice Chair


AFBCMR BC-2003-00215





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    , be corrected to show that the Enlisted Performance Report,
AF Form 911, rendered for the period 3 January 2001 through 2 January 2002,
be amended in Section V, Rater’s Comments, by deleting the line “Although
an extremely hard worker, displayed several lapses in judgement this
reporting period.”

      It is further directed that applicant be provided supplemental
consideration for promotion to the grade of chief master sergeant beginning
with cycle 02E9.

      If AFPC discovers any adverse factors during or subsequent to
supplemental consideration that are separate and apart, and unrelated to
the issues involved in this application, that would have rendered the
applicant ineligible for the promotion, such information will be documented
and presented to the board for a final determination on the individual’s
qualification for the promotion.

      If supplemental promotion consideration results in the selection for
promotion to the higher grade, immediately after such promotion the records
shall be corrected to show that he was promoted to the higher grade on the
date of rank established by the supplemental promotion and that he is
entitled to all pay, allowances, and benefits of such grade as of that
date.






            JOE G. LINEBERGER
            Director
            Air Force Review Boards Agency