RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  02-02455
            INDEX CODE:

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

The Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) rendered for  the  period     16
June 1997 through 15 June 1998 be declared void and removed  from  his
records.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The contested report is unjust and it does not accurately reflect  his
accomplishments.

In support of the appeal, applicant submits a copy  of  a  report  and
briefing showing results of unit inspections, a copy  of  his  initial
and mid-term feedback worksheets, and two character references.

Applicant's complete submission,  with  attachments,  is  attached  at
Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant is currently serving in the Regular  Air  Force  in  the
grade of master sergeant sergeant.

EPR profile since 1996 reflects the following:

      PERIOD ENDING                 EVALUATION OF POTENTIAL

         15 Sep 96                        5
         15 Jun 97                        5
        *15 Jun 98                        4
         15 Jun 99                        5
          1 May 00                        5
          1 May 01                        5

      *Contested Report

The applicant filed an appeal under the  provisions  of  AFI  36-2401,
Correcting Officer and Enlisted Evaluation Reports,        1  December
1997.  The Evaluation Reports Appeal Board (ERAB) denied his request.
_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPP  states  that  it  is  the  evaluators’  responsibility   to
determine which accomplishments are included  on  the  EPR.   Further,
although an inspection measures performance at  a  point  in  time,  a
rater evaluates a member’s performance over the entire period  of  the
report.  Section V, Rater’s Comments, is the rater’s assessment of the
ratee, not the ratee’s assessment of himself.

In order to void a report, there  must  be  clear  evidence  that  the
original evaluation was unjust or wrong.  The applicant claims he  was
unfairly held accountable for problems within the unit,  but  provided
nothing more than unsubstantiated conjecture in an attempt to validate
his claim.   He  must  provide  factual,  specific  and  substantiated
information from credible officials based on firsthand observation  or
knowledge.

In summary, an evaluation report is considered to represent the rating
chain’s assessment at the time it  is  rendered.   Once  a  report  is
accepted for file, only  strong  evidence  to  the  contrary  warrants
correction or removal from an  individual’s  record.   The  burden  of
proof is on the applicant.  He has not  substantiated  his  contention
that the contested report was  not  rendered  in  good  faith  by  all
evaluators based on knowledge available at the time.  Therefore,  they
recommend denial of applicant’s request.

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

AFPC/DPPPWB  states  that  a  member  will  not  normally  be  granted
supplemental consideration  if  the  error  or  omission  appeared  on
his/her Data Verification Record (DVR) or in the Unit Personnel Record
Group  (UPRG)  and  the  individual  did  not  take  the   appropriate
corrective or follow up action before  the  original  board  convened.
The purpose of this policy is to reduce the number of “after the fact”
changes that are initiated in an effort to get  a  second  opportunity
for promotion.  The applicant states he submitted an appeal package to
his MPF in August 2001, well after  selections  for  cycle  98E8  were
released (11 March 1998).  The first time the contested EPR  was  used
in the promotion process was cycle  98E8  to  senior  master  sergeant
(SMSgt) (promotions effective  April  1998-March  1999).   Should  the
AFBCMR void the report as requested, the applicant will be entitled to
supplemental consideration beginning with cycle 98E8.

A complete copy of their evaluation is attached at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

On 4 October 2002, 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 probable error or  injustice.   After  reviewing  the
evidence of record, we are not persuaded that the applicant’s  records
are in error or that he has been the  victim  of  an  injustice.   His
contentions are noted; however, in our opinion, the detailed  comments
provided by the appropriate Air Force offices adequately address those
allegations.  Therefore, we agree with opinions and recommendations of
the Air  Force  and  adopt  their  rationale  as  the  basis  for  the
conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of an  error  or
injustice.  In the absence of evidence to the  contrary,  we  find  no
compelling basis to recommend  granting  the  relief  sought  in  this
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 9 January 2003, under the provisions of  AFI  36-
2603:

                       Mr. Wayne R. Gracie, Panel Chair
                       Mr. Grover L. Dunn, Member
                       Mr. Thomas J. Topolski, Jr., Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

      Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 3 Jul 02, w/atchs.
      Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
      Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPPP, dated 13 Sep 02.
      Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/DPPPWB, dated 18 Sep 02.
      Exhibit E. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 4 Oct 02.




                             WAYNE R. GRACIE
                             Panel Chair