RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2003-00823
            INDEX CODE:  111.02

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO


_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His Enlisted Performance Report (EPR), rendered for the period  16 Feb
02 through 17 Nov 02, be declared void and removed from  his  records;
and, that his Promotion Sequence Number (PSN) be reinstated.
_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The contested report was written with bias and prejudice, without  due
process and the required  documentation.   The  contested  report  was
written in reaction to a former civilian’s  intent  to  file  an  EEOC
complaint against the Education Services Office.

In support of  his  request,  the  applicant  submits  copies  of  the
contested referral report, his response to the  referral  report,  two
statements of support, performance feedback worksheets,  EPRs  closing
20 Apr 01 and 15 Feb 02,  and  the  Evaluation  Reports  Appeal  Board
(ERAB)  decision.    The   applicant’s   complete   submission,   with
attachments, is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant’s Total Active Federal Military Service Date (TAFMSD) is
5 Apr 83.  He is currently serving on active  duty  in  the  grade  of
technical sergeant (E-6), with an effective date and date of rank of 1
Sep 99.  The following is a resume of his EPR  ratings  subsequent  to
his promotion to that grade.

            Period Ending    Evaluation

               20 Apr 00     5 - Immediate Promotion
               20 Apr 01     5
               15 Feb 02     4 - Ready for Promotion
            *  17 Nov 02     3 - Consider for Promotion

* Contested referral report

A similar appeal by the applicant, under Air Force  Instruction  (AFI)
36-2401, was considered and denied by  the  Evaluation  Report  Appeal
Board (ERAB) on 21 Feb 03.
_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

HQ AFPC/DPPPE recommends the applicant’s  request  to  void  his  EPR,
closing 17 Nov 02, be denied.  DPPPE states  that  the  applicant  has
incorrectly assumed that there must be some sort  of  required  formal
documentation completed prior to rendering a referral evaluation.  The
applicant has  not  provided  evidence  that  would  substantiate  his
allegations that his rater  was  biased  towards  him.   Although  the
applicant claims there was no  formal  documentation  to  warrant  the
referral report, he has provided copies of formal feedback he received
during the reporting period  clearly  identifying  concerns  with  his
performance  in  fostering  teamwork  (specifically  with  civilians).
After reviewing  the  rater’s  referral  report  and  the  applicant’s
rebuttal, the  additional  rater  and  commander  concurred  with  the
referral EPR as written.  The HQ AFPC/DPPPE evaluation is  at  Exhibit
C.


HQ AFPC/DPPPWB defers to the recommendation of HQ AFPC/DPPPE regarding
the removal of the contested  EPR.   With  respect  to  the  issue  of
supplemental  promotion,  DPPPE  states   that   the   applicant   was
tentatively selected for promotion to the grade of master sergeant (E-
7) during cycle 02E7, promotions effective Aug 02 - Jul 03.  When  the
applicant received the referral EPR, it  automatically  cancelled  his
promotion for cycle 02E7 and also rendered him  ineligible  for  cycle
03E7.  Individuals  regain  their  promotion  eligibility  only  after
receiving an EPR with a rating  of  “3”  or  higher,  that  is  not  a
referral, and closes out on or before the Promotion Eligibility Cutoff
Date (PECD) for the next cycle.  Should the Board void the  report  as
requested,  providing  he  is  otherwise  eligible,  the   applicant’s
promotion to E-7 could be reinstated, with an effective date and  date
of rank of 1 Apr 03.  The HQ AFPC/DPPPWB evaluation is at Exhibit D.
_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS:

Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to applicant  on  2
May 03 for review and response.  As of this date, no response has been
received by this office (Exhibit E).
_________________________________________________________________

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 a thorough review  of  the
evidence of record and applicant’s submission, we are unpersuaded that
the contested EPR should be removed from his record.   We  have  noted
the documents provided with the applicant’s submission.  However, they
do not, in our opinion, support a finding  that  the  evaluators  were
unable to render unbiased evaluations of the  applicant’s  performance
or that the ratings on the contested  report  were  based  on  factors
other than applicant’s duty performance during  the  contested  rating
period.  Evaluators are required  to  assess  a  ratee’s  performance,
honestly and to the best of their ability, based on  their  observance
of an individual’s performance.  Additionally, we  found  no  evidence
that the contested report was prepared contrary to the  governing  Air
Force Instruction.  In view of the  foregoing  and  absent  statements
from his rating chain, we agree with the comments  and  recommendation
of the appropriate Air Force office (HQ  AFPC/DPPPE).   Therefore,  in
the absence of  sufficient  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 8 July 2003, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

                  Mr. John L. Robuck, Panel Chair
                  Mr. Christopher Carey, Member
                  Ms. Martha Maust, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 5 Mar 03, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPPE, dated 17 Apr 03.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPPWB, dated 24 Apr 03.
   Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 2 May 03.




                                   JOHN L. ROBUCK
                                   Panel Chair