RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC 2003-00734
            INDEX CODE:  111.05

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED: NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

The Airman Performance Report (APR) rendered  for  the  period  2 June  1977
through 1 June 1978  be  declared  void  and  he  be  provided  supplemental
promotion consideration to the grade of technical sergeant.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The  APR  in  question  placed  undue  emphasis  on   an   isolated   event.
Inappropriate emphasis should not be given to  isolated  instances  of  poor
performance or behavior.  The significance of the event  and  its  frequency
should have been weighed in assessing how it represented total performance.

He also states that he did  not  learn  until  recently  that  the  referral
report cost him a  promotion  to  technical  sergeant.   He  did  not  fully
understand the time constraints involved with  applications  for  correction
to military records.  The evidence submitted clearly shows the  decision  to
write a referral performance report was based upon an isolated incident  and
then not properly investigated by trained and qualified investigators.   The
evidence was destroyed and he was told to accept the report as is,  or  face
administrative separation from the service.  Under these  circumstances,  he
signed the report and ceased any and all  efforts  to  defend  himself.   He
firmly believes the amount of years does not change the  fact  that  justice
was not served in his case.

In support of his appeal, he has provided a copy  of  the  contested  report
and statements from individuals commenting on the circumstances  surrounding
the incident in question.  His complete submission, with attachments, is  at
Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 16 June 1960, applicant enlisted in the Regular Air  Force.   On  1  July
1980, he retired in the grade of staff sergeant for length of service.

Applicant’s performance reports rendered in  the  grade  of  staff  sergeant
reflect the following ratings:

              PERIOD ENDING              OVERALL RATING

              24 Aug 1971                      9
              29 Feb 1972                      7
              28 Feb 1973                      8
              15 Jun 1973                      8
               9 Nov 1973                      6
               1 Oct 1974                      9
               1 Jun 1975                      8
               1 Jun 1976                      8
               1 Jun 1977                      8
             * 1 Jun 1978                      7 (Referral)
              25 Apr 1979                      8
              25 Apr 1980                      7

* Contested APR

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPPEP  recommends  denial.    DPPPEP   states   that   the   applicant
acknowledges that while assigned to Barksdale AFB, LA, he  was  involved  in
three minor incidents.  He  has  provided  numerous  supporting  memorandums
attesting to his outstanding duty performance;  however,  the  rating  chain
was in the best  position  to  observe  and  document  duty  performance  to
include the significance and frequency of the  misconduct.   There  were  no
errors cited in this APR.  The  applicant  has  failed  to  prove  that  the
documented performance on the contested report was inaccurate.   While  some
of  the  supporting  documentation  suggests  proper  procedures  were   not
followed during the investigation of  the  accident,  it  appears  that  the
issue was addressed and apparently resolved at that time.

DPPPEP states that some twenty-four years have  elapsed  since  this  report
was rendered and  the  documentation  provided  by  the  applicant  strongly
suggests any  issues  or  concerns  by  the  applicant  were  addressed  and
resolved.  Based on the timeframe of this  request,  DPPPEP  cannot  provide
any additional response/documentation other than what the applicant  himself
has provided (again, they strongly suggests any issues were resolved twenty-
four years ago when the report was rendered).

The DPPPEP evaluation is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

AFPC/DPPPWB also reviewed this application and indicated that if  the  Board
removes the contested report, applicant would be  entitled  to  supplemental
promotion consideration; however, since promotion  history  files  are  only
maintained for a period of 10 years, there is no way to  go  back  23  years
and determine if he would have been selected for promotion.

The DPPPWB evaluation is at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded  to  the  applicant  on  10
June 2003, for review and comment 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 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 error or injustice.  After reviewing the evidence  provided  in
support of his appeal, we are not persuaded that the contested report is  an
inaccurate  depiction  of  the  applicant's  performance  and   demonstrated
potential  for  the  period  in  question.   In  the  rating  process,  each
evaluator is required to assess a ratee's performance, honestly and  to  the
best of their ability.  In judging the merits of this case, we took note  of
the applicant's contention that undue emphasis was  placed  on  an  isolated
incident.  However, other than his own assertions, we have seen no  evidence
which would lead us to believe that the rating was  based  on  inappropriate
considerations, the rater abused his discretionary authority,  or  that  the
report was technically flawed.  Accordingly, since we do find  that  removal
of his performance report is appropriate,  favorable  consideration  of  his
request for supplemental promotion to technical sergeant is  not  warranted.
Therefore, in the absence of such evidence, we find no basis upon  which  to
favorably consider 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 AFBCMR Docket Number  BC-2003-
00734 in Executive Session on 29 Jan 03, under the  provisions  of  AFI  36-
2603:

      Ms. Olga M. Crerar, Panel Chair
      Mr. John L. Robuck, Member
      Mr. Vaughn E. Schlunz, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 24 Feb 03, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPEP, dated 23 May 03.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPCDPPPWB, dated 2 Jun 03.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 10 Jun 03.




                                   OLGA M. CRERAR
                                   Panel Chair