RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2003-02200
            INDEX CODE: 100.00

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO


_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

The Enlisted Performance Report (EPR), rendered  for  the  period  6 October
2001 through 5 October 2002, be removed from his records.

_________________________________________________________________

THE APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The EPR is an inaccurate assessment of his performance during the  contested
period.

The EPR is unjust and untrue since his records reflect that he has  excelled
at every level.  Furthermore, he was not provided  due  process  to  clarify
the alleged statements.

In support of the appeal, the applicant submits his personal  statement  and
a copy of his request to the Evaluation Reports Appeal Board (ERAB).

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant is currently serving on active duty in the grade of  technical
sergeant.

The applicant’s request under AFI 36-2401 to have the contested EPR  removed
from his records was denied by the ERAB.

Applicant’s performance profile follows:

             PERIOD ENDING               OVERALL RATING

               23 Apr 87                       9
               23 Apr 88                       9
               23 Apr 89                       9
               31 Mar 90                       4
               30 Nov 90                       5
               14 Jul 91                       4
               14 Jul 92                       5
               30 Apr 93                       5
               31 Jan 94                       5
               31 Jan 95                       5
               31 Jan 96                       5
               31 Jan 97                       5
                1 Oct 97                       5
               24 Aug 98                       5
               18 Apr 99                       5
               21 Mar 00                       4
               21 Mar 01                       5
                5 Oct 01                       5
             *  5 Oct 02 (Referral Report)     3 (Rater)
                                                   2 (Add’l Rater)

* Contested EPR

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS:

AFPC/DPPPE recommends the application be denied and states,  in  part,  that
the applicant provides no evidence as to why the  rating  chain  should  not
have included  information  regarding  his  financial  irresponsibility,  or
refusal to accomplish tasks from his supervisors in the contested  EPR.   He
provides only his own opinion and does not submit evidence  to  support  his
contentions.  AFPC/DPPPWB  notes  that  the  issues  that  resulted  in  the
contested report occurred at different times, in  different  locations,  and
involved different individuals serving  in  a  rating  capacity.   While  he
contends a hard copy of the contested  report  was  not  maintained  in  his
records and  is  only  reflected  in  the  Military  Personnel  Data  System
(MILPDS), the report is in file in his records.

The AFPC/DPPPE evaluation, with attachment, is at Exhibit C.

AFPC/DPPPWB defers to the recommendation of AFPC/DPPPE and states, in  part,
that should the AFBCMR decide to remove the contested report, the  applicant
would be entitled to supplemental  promotion  consideration  beginning  with
cycle 03E7.

The AFPC/DPPPE evaluation is at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS:

The rater who wrote the  contested  report  was  not  his  true  rater.   He
submits a copy of an Email indicating that  his  rater  was  changed  and  a
performance feedback worksheet completed by this rater.  In  view  of  this,
the rater who wrote the report did not have enough days of  supervision,  to
write the report.  While the report is currently in his records it  did  not
appear  there  until  July  2003.   Furthermore,  he  never   received   any
counseling from his First Sergeant or  Commander  concerning  any  financial
irresponsibility.  If he had any of  these  problems,  he  would  have  been
stripped  of  his  clearance  and   been   administered   an   Article   15.
Furthermore, if the allegations were true, he would have been placed on  the
control roster and not allowed to complete a  Permanent  Change  of  Station
(PCS).

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

In further support of the appeal, his commander has provided a statement  in
which he states  the  report  is  not  indicative  of  this  highly  skilled
professional, who is very  knowledgeable  in  his  technical  specialty  and
totally dedicated to duty.  He further states that  the  applicant  met  and
exceeded all of the requirements and earned his  strongest  endorsement  for
restoring his promotion to the grade of master sergeant (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 a thorough review  of  the  evidence
of record and applicant’s submission, we are  not  persuaded  that  the  EPR
closing 5 October 2002  is  an  inaccurate  assessment  of  his  performance
during the  contested  period.   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  Air
Force.  The  office  of  primary  responsibility  has  adequately  addressed
applicant’s contentions and we agree with  its  conclusions  and  adopt  the
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  Docket  Number  BC-2003-02200
in Executive Session on 8 October 2003, under  the  provisions  of  AFI  36-
2603:

                       Mr. Thomas S. Markiewicz, Chair
                       Ms. Martha Maust, Member
                       Mr. Michael V. Barbino, Member

By majority vote, the Board voted to deny the application.  Ms. Maust  voted
to grant the relief requested, but  does  not  wish  to  submit  a  Minority
Report.  The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 26 Jun 03, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPWB, dated 22 Jul 03.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPE, dated 22 Jul 03.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 15 Aug 03.
    Exhibit F.  Letter, Applicant, dated 28 Aug 03, w/atchs.
    Exhibit G.  Letter, 12 CS/CC, dated 5 Sep 03.




                                   THOMAS S. MARKIEWICZ
                                   Chair