RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2003-00839
                       INDEX CODE:  111.02

      APPLICANT  COUNSEL:  None

      SSN        HEARING DESIRED:  None

_________________________________________________________________


APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

The Enlisted  Performance  Report (EPR)  rendered for  the  period  10
June 1998 through 15 January 2000 be removed from his records.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The reason his rater and indorser gave  him  for  not  giving  him  an
overall rating of “5” was he  failed  his  career  development  course
(CDC) before his EPR closed out.

He was unjustly rated because the reason his rater and  indorser  gave
was untrue because he did not take his test until 20  March  2000  and
his EPR closed out on 15 January 2000.

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 senior airman (SrA).

The applicant appealed the contested report under  the  provisions  of
AFI 36-2401, Correcting Officer and Enlisted Evaluations Reports.  The
Evaluation  Reports  Appeal  Board  (ERAB)  denied  his  request.   No
documentation was submitted  indicating  the  rating  chain  supported
removal of the EPR or that their assessment was inaccurate.

The applicant’s EPR profile reflects the following:

                 PERIOD ENDING               OVERALL EVALUATION

                  *15 Jan 00                       4
                   15 Jan 01                       5
                   29 Oct 01                       5
                   29 Oct 02                       5

* Contested report.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR STAFF EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPPE states the applicant submitted an appeal to  the  ERAB  and
the ERAB denied his request  stating  the  applicant  did  not  submit
evidence to substantiate his request to have the report  removed  from
his records.

The applicant contends his rating  chain  gave  him  a  “4”  promotion
recommendation due to his non-completion  of  his  career  development
course.  The additional rater stated in an e-mail that  the  applicant
received the “4” because he failed his first CDC test.  After  careful
review DPPPE states it is clear that his additional  rater  would  not
have known about the CDC failure as he signed the EPR  on  6  February
2000 and the scorecard for his failure was dated 5  April  2000.   The
applicant did not take the examination until 20 March 2000.   However,
it is reasonable to believe that  three  years  after  the  fact,  the
additional rater was unable to provide an exact explanation as to  why
he rated the applicant at a “4.”  DPPPE further states  the  applicant
has not provided any documentation  from  either  the  rater  or  unit
commander supporting his contention that the EPR was unjust.

Furthermore, Air Force policy is that an evaluation report is accurate
as written when it becomes a matter of record.  The  applicant  failed
to substantiate his allegations and they find no errors or  injustices
cited in the EPR.  They recommend the applicant’s request to have  the
EPR voided be denied.

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

AFPC/DPPPWB states based on the applicant’s  date  of  rank  (DOR)  to
senior airman, he was  considered  for  promotion  to  staff  sergeant
(SSgt) twice.  The first time he was considered  was  in  cycle  01E5.
His total score was 228.24 and the score required for promotion in his
Air Force Specialty Code (AFSC) was 242.14.  He was  considered  again
for promotion in cycle 02E5.  The score  required  for  promotion  was
244.79 and his score was 240.74.  DPPPWB further states if the  AFBCMR
grants the applicant’s request, providing he is otherwise eligible, he
would be entitled
to supplemental promotion consideration  beginning  with  cycle  01E5.
However, it would serve no useful purpose  to  provide  the  applicant
with supplemental consideration for this cycle, because he  could  not
be selected.  He missed selection for the cycle  by  13.9  points  and
would only gain 12.79 points if this report  were  removed.   However,
the applicant would  become  a  select  for  the  cycle  02E5  pending
favorable data verification and the recommendation from his commander.
 AFPC/DPPPWB defers to the recommendation of AFPC/DPPPE (Exhibit D).

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR STAFF EVALUATION:

Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on
9 May 2003, for review and response.  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.  After a thorough review  of  the
evidence of record and applicant’s submission, we are unpersuaded that
relief should be granted.  Applicant’s  contentions  are  duly  noted;
however, we do not  find  these  assertions,  in  and  by  themselves,
sufficiently persuasive to override  the  rationale  provided  by  the
offices of the Air Force.  The applicant did  not  provide  sufficient
evidence as to why the contested report was not an accurate reflection
of his performance.  The e-mail statement from the additional rater is
duly noted; however, it would appear  the  additional  rater  did  not
accurately remember the  circumstances  of  the  situation.   In  this
regard, the  contested  report  closed  out  prior  to  the  applicant
completing his CDCs.  Therefore, it does not appear that this was  the
reason for the overall “4” rating.  Further, we note the applicant did
not provide documentation from his rater  to  support  his  contention
that the report was inaccurate or  unjust.   In  accordance  with  Air
Force policy an evaluation report  is  accurate  as  written  when  it
becomes a matter or  record.   We  therefore  adopt  the  Air  Force's
rationale expressed as the basis for our decision that  the  applicant
has failed to sustain his burden that he has suffered either an  error
or an injustice.  Hence, we find  no  compelling  basis  to  recommend
granting the relief sought.

_________________________________________________________________

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-
2003-00839 in Executive Session on 10 June 2003, under the  provisions
of AFI 36-2603:

              Mr. Richard A. Peterson, Panel Chair
              Mr. Christopher Carey, Member
              Mr. Gregory A. Parker, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

      Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 10 Mar 03, w/atchs.
      Exhibit B. Enlisted Performance Reports.
      Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPPPE, dated 11 Apr 03.
      Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/DPPPWB, dated 17 Apr 03.
      Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 9 May 03.




                       RICHARD A. PETERSON
                       Panel Chair