RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC2003-01161


            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED: YES

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

The Enlisted Performance Report, (EPR),  rendered  for  the  period
13 May 1999 through 25 January 2000, be declared void  and  removed
from his records.
___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

Applicant states  that  no  documented  evidence  exists  that  his
performance had been anything less than exceptional.   After  being
briefed there were no repercussions from TMI/Open Space Assessment,
the markdowns on the contested report were a direct result  of  it.
He also believes  that  the  additional  rater  had  a  personality
conflict with him.

In support  of  his  appeal,  applicant  has  provided  a  personal
statement, a copy of his latest performance report and  a  copy  of
his appeal package filed under AFI 36-2401.   In  addition  he  has
provided a copy of his score sheet for promotion to  the  grade  of
chief master sergeant for cycle 02E9.

Applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.
___________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant is currently serving in the  Regular  Air  Force  in  the
grade of senior master sergeant.

He applied under the provision of AFI 36-2401 to have the contested
EPR removed from  his  records;  however,  the  Evaluation  Reports
Appeal Board (ERAB) denied his request.

With the exception of the contested EPR closing  25  January  2000,
applicant’s performance report from 1992 reflect an overall  rating
of “5”.  The rater on the contested report rated  the  applicant  a
“5”, the rater’s rater downgraded the  report  to  a  “4”  and  the
indorser concurred with the rater’s rater.

___________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPPEP reviewed this application and indicates that the applicant
did not provide any documentation from  his  rating  chain  indicating
that they were wrongfully influenced by the results from the  TMI/Open
Space assessment.  Additionally, the applicant  states  that  lack  of
feedback was an additional factor in his less than stellar evaluation.
  The  contested  report  reflects  that  the  applicant  did  receive
feedback.  He states that this is false; however,  he  has  failed  to
provide documentation to  support  his  allegation.   He  has  alleged
several instances of biased treatment from his rating chain;  however,
he  again  has  failed  to  support  or  substantiate  any  of   them.
Therefore, DPPPEP recommends denial of his application.

AFPC/DPPPEP complete evaluation is at Exhibit C.

AFPC/DPPPWB also reviewed this application and indicated  that  should
the Board remove the report as requested, applicant would be  entitled
to supplemental consideration beginning with cycle 00E9.

AFPC/DPPPWB complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit D.

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant reviewed the Air Force evaluations and  stated  that  he
was selected as the HQ USAF SNCO of the Year for 2002.   He  has  done
all that he can do.  It’s obvious that the rater and the rater’s rater
were in disagreement on the EPR.  Why is that?   Obviously,  something
is wrong with this picture!  His records were outstanding  before  and
after the bad EPR.  If something seems array, that's  because  it  is.
If the Air Force can’t see this and he is passed over for promotion to
chief this time, he will retire from the Air Force.

He apologizes if this letter seems a bit bitter, but he knows  in  his
heart he was treated unfairly and had been told so by many people whom
he worked with in that organization

Applicant’s complete response is 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 probable error or injustice.  After reviewing all  of
the evidence provided, 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 the rater’s
rater's assessment of his duty performance was less than  exceptional.
However, other than his own assertions, we have seen  no  evidence  by
the applicant that would lead us to believe the rater's  rater  abused
his  discretionary  authority,  that   the   rating   was   based   on
inappropriate considerations,  or  that  the  report  was  technically
flawed.  Therefore, in the absence of such evidence,  the  applicant's
request is not favorably considered

4.    The applicant's case is adequately documented  and  it  has  not
been shown that a personal appearance with  or  without  counsel  will
materially add to our understanding of the issue involved.  Therefore,
the request for a hearing is not favorably considered.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:

The  applicant  be  notified  that  the  evidence  presented  did  not
demonstrate the existence of a 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 Docket  Number  BC-2003-
01161 in Executive Session on 21 August 2003, under the provisions  of
AFI 36-2603:

                 Mr. Richard A. Peterson, Panel Chair
                 Ms. Brenda L. Romine, Member
                 Mr. Roscoe Hinton, Jr., Member

      Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 28 Mar 03, w/atchs.
      Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
      Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPPPEP, dated 28 May 03.
      Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/DPPPWB, dated 6 Jun 03.
      Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 27 Jun 03
      Exhibit F. Applicant’s Response, dated 23 Jul 03.






      RICHARD A. PETERSON
      Panel Chair