RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2003-03357
            INDEX CODE:  111.05

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO


_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

The Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) rendered for the  period  8 June  2002
through 3 February 2003, be declared void.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The contested EPR is unjust.  She was given an initial  feedback  but  never
received a midterm.  She had no indication of substandard performance.   She
received promotion Below-the-Zone during this rating period.   The  comments
in the EPR indicate an expert and superb performer.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant is currently serving in the Regular Air Force in the grade  of
senior airman, with an effective date of rank (DOR) of 2 June 2002.

EPR profile since 2000 reflects the following:

      PERIOD ENDING    EVALUATION OF POTENTIAL

          7 Jun 02           5
        * 3 Feb 03           4

* Contested report

_________________________________________________________________





AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPPE recommends denial.  They  indicated  there  is  no  documentation
from the rating chain stating the assessment of the  report  was  incorrect.
While the applicant was promoted to senior  airman  Below-the-Zone,  it  was
very early in the contested reporting period and under  a  different  rating
chain.  The applicant’s effective date of promotion was 2 June 2002 and  the
report did not close out until some eight months later on  3 February  2003.
The fact that an individual is promoted during a reporting period  does  not
guarantee any specific rating when the report  closes-out.   Also,  as  with
any change in reporting officials, the new rater had different  expectations
of the applicant and  rated  her  accordingly.   A  letter  of  support  was
provided from the applicant’s current first sergeant, which is  commendable;
however, he was  not  in  applicant’s  rating  chain  when  the  report  was
rendered.   At  the  time  the  report  closed-out,  the  applicant’s  first
sergeant at that time would have had the opportunity to  review  the  report
for quality control reasons.  That first sergeant has not been  heard  from.
Further, both the additional rater and commander who indorsed and  concurred
with the report also have not been heard  from  with  any  indication  their
initial assessment was inaccurate.  Applicant’s  initial  feedback  provided
clearly indicates there was room for improvement in several areas.

If the AFBCMR grants relief they  recommend  only  correcting  the  feedback
block to reflect the applicant has substantiated that mid-term feedback  was
not provided.  The  rest  of  the  report  remains  a  valid  assessment  as
written.

The evaluation is at Exhibit C.

AFPC/DPPPWB deferred their recommendation to  AFPC/DPPPE.   The  first  time
the contested report was used in the promotion process was  cycle  CY03A  to
staff sergeant.  The applicant’s total promotion score was  232.11  and  the
score required for selection in her Air  Force  Specialty  Code  (AFSC)  was
241.95.   In  accordance  with  AFI  36-2502,  paragraph  2.5,  supplemental
promotion consideration  may  not  be  granted  if  the  error  or  omission
appeared on the member’s data verification record (DVR)  and  no  corrective
or follow-up  action  was  taken  by  the  member  prior  to  the  promotion
selection.  The applicant did not take corrective action until 22  September
2003, after  selections  were  made  on  5 August  2003,  and  results  were
released on 13 August 2003.  However, should  the  Board  void  the  report,
providing she is otherwise eligible, the applicant would become a select  as
her total score would increase to 246.33, above the  241.95  score  required
for selection in her AFSC.

The evaluation is at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________






APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

On 6 February 2004, copies of the Air Force evaluations  were  forwarded  to
the applicant for review and response within 30 days.  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  an  error  or  an  injustice.   The  applicant  contends  the
contested EPR is unjust,  she  was  given  an  initial  feedback  but  never
received a midterm, and she had no indication  of  substandard  performance.
We note she received promotion Below-the-Zone during  the  contested  rating
period and the comments in the EPR indicate an expert and superb  performer.
 However, after thoroughly reviewing the  evidence  of  record  we  are  not
persuaded that the contested report should  be  declared  void  and  removed
from her records.  We note the applicant has not  submitted  any  supporting
documentation from the rating chain of the contested report and  has  failed
to provide evidence showing the report was not  an  accurate  assessment  as
rendered.  The applicant provided a  letter  of  support  from  her  current
first sergeant which  is  duly  noted;  however,  he  was  not  tasked  with
assessing  the  applicant’s  duty  performance  during  the  contested  time
period.   The  Board  further  notes  the  applicant’s  initial  performance
feedback worksheet, dated 28 August 2002, which  indicates  there  was  room
for improvement in several areas.  Therefore, we agree with the opinion  and
recommendation of the Air Force and adopt their rationale as the  basis  for
our conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim  of  an  error  or
injustice.  Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary,  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 an 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-
03357 in Executive Session on 10 March 2004 under the provisions of AFI  36-
2603:

                 Ms. Brenda L. Romine, Panel Chair
                 Ms. Ann-Cecile M. McDermott, Member
                 Ms. Kathleen F. Graham, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 22 September 2003, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPE, dated 31 December 2003.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPWB, dated 9 January 2004.
   Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 6 February 2004.




                                   BRENDA L. ROMINE
                                   Panel Chair