RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2003-01367
            INDEX NUMBER:  111.00
      XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX  COUNSEL:  None

      XXX-XX-XXXX      HEARING DESIRED:  Yes

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

The Enlisted Performance  Reports  (EPRs)  rendered  on  him  for  the
periods 31 Jul 00 through 8 Jun 01 and 9 Jun 01 through 15 Apr  02  be
voided and removed from his records.

His Air Force Specialty Code, 3S1X1, Military Equal Opportunity  (MEO)
craftsman, be reinstated.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He wrote the EPR closing out 8 Jun 01 in violation of  the  Air  Force
Instruction.  He filed an Inspector General (IG) complaint,  but  they
did not take any action.

His AFSC was withdrawn without  merit.   The  AF  Form  2096  was  not
completely filled out.  His training report, AF  Form  623,  does  not
correlate with the reasons listed on the AF Form 2096 for  withdrawing
his AFSC.

His supervisor stated in a memorandum that he only decertified him  in
nonverbal communication.  He did not receive training in the  area  in
which he was decertified before the action was taken.  His  supervisor
also stated that he did not know if removing his AFSC  was  the  right
action.  His supervisor also concurred that the  applicant  was  in  a
hostile work environment.

The EPR rendered on him for the period 9 Jul 01 through 15 Apr 02  was
an automatic referral report due to the withdrawal of  his  AFSC.   If
the Board reinstates his  AFSC,  this  report  should  be  voided  and
removed from his records.

In support of his appeal the applicant provides copies of his training
paperwork, IG complaint, a statement of support from  his  supervisor,
and two statements prepared by  co-workers  on  his  duty  performance
history.

The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is  at  Exhibit
A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant entered active duty in the Air Force on 8 Aug  91.   His
AFSC, 3S1X1, was withdrawn on  19  Dec  01  due  to  substandard  duty
performance.

A resume of the applicant’s last ten EPRs follows:

      Closeout Date                     Overall Rating

         15 Sep 94                           4
         01 Apr 95                           5
         01 Apr 96                           5
         30 Jul 96                           5
         30 Jul 97                           5
         30 Jul 98                           5
         30 Jul 99                           5
        *30 Jul 00                           5
       **08 Jun 01                           3
       **15 Apr 02                           3

*   First Report in career field from which disqualified
**  Contested Reports

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPAC recommends denial of the applicant’s request  to  reinstate
his AFSC.  The documents provided by the applicant do not substantiate
that the action to withdraw  his  AFSC  was  invalid.   The  case  was
reviewed by an evaluation officer, the Wing Commander, and approved by
major command authority.

The complete evaluation is at Exhibit C.

AFPC/DPPPEP strongly recommends denial of the applicant’s  request  to
void his EPRs closing out 8 Jun 01 and 15 Apr 02.

The applicant filed a previous  appeal  with  the  Evaluation  Reports
Appeal Board (ERAB) on the report closing out 8 Jun 01.  He  contended
that  the  report  was  inaccurate  based  on  a  lack  of   training,
inconsistent standards, and a personality  conflict  with  his  rater.
The ERAB denied his  request  based  on  the  applicant’s  failure  to
provide evidence to prove his contentions.  The applicant did file  an
IG complaint.  The IG was unable to render a decision on  six  of  the
complaints and referred the complaint to the applicant’s commander for
further investigation.  The applicant did not provide any findings  to
convince the ERAB that the report was erroneous or unjust.

The complete evaluation is at Exhibit D.

AFPC/DPPPWB evaluated the applicant’s request to determine what impact
removal of the EPRs would have on his promotion  opportunity.   Should
the Board decide to void the referral report or both reports, he  will
be entitled to supplemental  promotion  consideration  beginning  with
cycle 02E6.  They are unable to determine if he would become a  select
because he does not have a current test on file.

The complete evaluation is at Exhibit E.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant responded to the Air Force  evaluations  with  a  letter
with attachments and also provided a CD-ROM labeled “EPR copy made  30
July 03.”  However a copy of an EPR was not found on the CD-ROM.   The
CD-ROM contained three folders labeled “Charles Stuff,” “MEO Reports,”
and “My Documents.”  Each folder contained numerous files,  which  did
not present any obvious connection to the applicant’s case.

In his letter, the applicant discusses the conclusions reached  by  an
evaluation officer who reviewed the  AFSC  withdrawal  action  against
him.  However, the copy of the report he provided did not contain  the
sections that he references.  The applicant asserts that his 8 Jun  01
and 15 Apr 02 EPRs, his Human Relation Critiques, and his Unit Climate
Assessment critiques all prove that he did not have  substandard  duty
performance.  The applicant references the ratings given  him  on  the
EPR  closing  out  15  Apr  02,  which  was  received  after  he   was
disqualified, in Section III as  evidence  of  his  satisfactory  duty
performance.

The applicant also believes that his AFSC should be  reinstated  based
on the findings of the Command IG  that  the  AF  Form  2096  was  not
completely filled out  and  that  the  package  contained  performance
feedbacks that were not released by him.  The  applicant  states  that
the IG also confirmed that his supervisor withdrew the AF  Form  2096.
Although the commander could still proceed with the action, he  failed
to follow the procedures  outlined  in  AFI  36-2101.   The  applicant
states  that  there  is  still   an   open   investigation   regarding
deficiencies in the preparation of the 2096.  The applicant  indicates
that the IG found problems concerning his training.  This is important
he asserts because the first step in withdrawing an AFSC is to  review
the individual’s record for adequate  training.   The  applicant  also
questions one of the areas that he was decertified in.

The applicant’s complete response, with attachments, is at Exhibit G.

_________________________________________________________________

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 considering  the  complete
evidence of record, we are not persuaded that the commander’s decision
to remove the applicant’s AFSC was either arbitrary or capricious  and
that the  applicant’s  EPR  closing  8  Jun  01  was  accomplished  in
violation of Air Force directives.  Consequently, there are no grounds
to void the EPR closing 15 Apr 02.  We note that several inquiries  by
the inspector general (IG)  failed  to  substantiate  the  applicant’s
assertions.  We also found the  independent  evaluation  of  the  AFSC
withdrawal action accomplished by  SMSgt  B______  to  be  persuasive.
While noting that there were problems with  the  applicant’s  training
program, nonetheless, he recommended  that  the  applicant’s  AFSC  be
withdrawn.   Central  to  his  recommendation  were  the   applicant’s
statements that he was not happy in the MEO  career  field  and  “just
doesn’t believe in the program or what it teaches.”  As  pointed  out,
MEO personnel may at times  find  themselves  confronted  with  highly
emotional, sensitive issues that run counter to their own beliefs  and
values, but must still be handled in an  objective,  rational  manner.
It appears that the  applicant’s  rating  chain  did  not  believe  he
possessed the ability to  do  this.   Therefore,  we  do  not  find  a
compelling basis to grant the relief requested in this application.

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   issues   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 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-
01367 in Executive Session on 4 September 2003, under  the  provisions
of AFI 36-2603:

      Ms. Patricia D. Vestal, Panel Chair
      Ms. Nancy Wells Drury, Member
      Mr. Robert H. Altman, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 11 Apr 03, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPPAC, dated 5 Jun 03.
    Exhibit D.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPPPEP, dated 16 Jun 03.
    Exhibit E.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPPPWB, dated 26 Jun 03.
    Exhibit F.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 11 Jul 03.
    Exhibit G.  Letter, Applicant, dated 3 Aug 03, w/atchs.




                                   PATRICIA D. VESTAL
                                   Panel Chair