RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  02-02787
            INDEX CODE:  111.02

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO


_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

The Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) rendered  for  the  period     7
March 1998 through 6 March 1999 be declared void and removed from  his
records.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The “4” rating does not match the accomplishments  for  the  reporting
period; the feedback AF Form 931 marked to the  extreme  right  margin
stated he needed little or no improvement; he received  no  counseling
from his supervisor if there was need for improvement  from  the  last
feedback prior to EPR closeout; his entire  career  reflects  superior
performance in all areas of responsibilities past and  present,  there
is no negative documentation; and, his rating has impacted his  career
advancement, promotion to the next rank, and  his  faith  in  the  EPR
system.

In  support  of  the  appeal,  applicant   submits   three   character
references, Performance Feedback Worksheets (PFWs), and  his  previous
EPRs.

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 technical sergeant.

EPR profile since 1996 reflects the following:

      PERIOD ENDING                 EVALUATION OF POTENTIAL

         6 Mar 96                         5
         6 Mar 97                         5
         6 Mar 98                         5
        *6 Mar 99                         4
         6 Mar 00                         5
         6 Mar 01                         5
         6 Mar 02                         5

      *Contested Report

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPPEP states that there is not necessarily a direct  correlation
between  information  provided  during  feedback  sessions   and   the
assessments on evaluation reports.  The PFW acts as a scale  of  where
the ratee stands in relation to the performance  expectations  of  the
rater.  A PFW with all items marked “needs little or  no  improvement”
means the ratee is meeting the rater’s standards  at  that  time.   It
does not guarantee a firewalled EPR.  They further state  that  it  is
the rater’s ultimate responsibility to determine which accomplishments
are included on the EPR.  The  report  is  not  inaccurate  or  unfair
simply because the applicant believes it is.  Furthermore, ratings are
not erroneous or unjust  because  they  are  inconsistent  with  other
rating  given  in  an  individual’s  career.    A   report   evaluates
performance  during  a  specific  period  and  reflects   performance,
conduct, and potential at that time, in  that  position.   It  is  not
reasonable to compare one report covering a  certain  period  of  time
with another report covering a different period of  time.   This  does
not allow for changes in the ratee's performance.  They note that  the
EPR immediately prior to the contested EPR was  written  by  the  same
rater, who must have seen changes in  duty  performance  warranting  a
difference in ratings from one report to the next.

In  summary,  Air  Force  policy  is  that  an  evaluation  report  is
considered to represent the rating chain’s best judgment at  the  time
it is rendered.  They contend that once a report is accepted for file,
only strong, clear evidence to the  contrary  warrants  correction  or
removal from an individual’s record.  The applicant  has  provided  no
evidence to  show  the  evaluation  is  either  erroneous  or  unjust.
Therefore, they recommend denial of applicant’s request.

A complete copy of the evaluation is attached at Exhibit C.

AFPC/DPPPWB states that the first time the contested report  was  used
in the promotion process was cycle 01E7 to  master  sergeant.   Should
the AFBCMR void the report as requested,  providing  he  is  otherwise
eligible, the applicant will be entitled to supplemental consideration
beginning with cycle 01E7.  He would not  be  selected  as  his  total
score would increase to 316.84 and the score required for selection in
his Air Force Specialty Code (AFSC) is  331.50.   He  would  become  a
select for cycle 02E7 as his total score would increase to 336.83  and
the score required for selection in his AFSC  is  331.82.   Therefore,
they defer to the recommendation of AFPC/DPPPEP.

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

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Applicant states that the EPR in question has effected his career  and
he would like to add the following information:

    a.  In March 2000, his then immediate supervisor, MSgt J--- P. H---
 recommended him for a decoration prior to his change of duty station.
 The justification  was  his  performance  of  superior  flight  chief
duties, educational  accomplishments,  community  service,  and  being
selected squadron flight chief of the year (1999).  However, MSgt H---
‘s recommendation was denied and his supervisors informed him  of  the
squadron policy.  If an individual received a 4 EPR during their  tour
of duty  with  the  squadron  then  he/she  was  not  eligible  for  a
decoration.

    b.  The current job position he holds was also very  difficult  to
acquire.  It was a lengthy process to convince his  current  commander
to hire him.  MSgt H--- made  several  phone  calls  and  submitted  a
letter  of  recommendation.   The  group  chief  interviewed  him  and
discussed his  past  performance  and  the  4  EPR  in  question.   In
addition,  they  conducted  a  telecom  interview  with  his   current
commander  and  superintendent.   Only  after  all  these  steps  were
completed did the commander decide  to  hire  him.   He  is  currently
responsible for standing up the Air Force’s  CV-22  Osprey  Tilt-rotor
maintenance courses filling a MSgt position.

    c.  The impact of  the  4  EPR  is  also  evident  from  his  last
promotion cycle, causing him to miss master sergeant by 0.39 point.

    d.  Finally, the EPR in question is affecting him  financially  at
the current rate of pay and retirement at the 20 years of  service  if
he chooses to do so!  He falls under the Top Three rule and any future
retirement pay is affected by the highest grade held  the  last  three
years of service.

It is his intent for the Board to have as much information as possible
before ruling on his case.

A copy of applicant’s response is attached at Exhibit F.

_________________________________________________________________




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 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 23 January 2003, under the provisions of AFI  36-
2603:

                       Ms. Cathlynn Sparks, Panel Chair
                       Mr. John E.B. Smith, Member
                       Mr. Joseph A. Roj, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

      Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 31 Jul 02, w/atchs.
      Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
      Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPPPEP, dated 27 Sep 02.
      Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/DPPPWB, dated 27 Sep 02.
      Exhibit E. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 11 Oct 02.
      Exhibit F. Applicant’s Letter, dated 8 Nov 02.




                             CATHLYNN SPARKS
                             Panel Chair