RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2004-00055

            INDEX CODE:  111.02


            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  YES


_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His Referral Enlisted  Performance  Report  (EPR),  rendered  for  the
period 6 April 2001 through 21 December 2001,  is  declared  void  and
removed from his records.
_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The contested report is neither accurate nor objective, contains false
information and was partially drafted by the  rater  who  acknowledged
being inappropriately influenced by the unit commander’s  blatant  and
negative bias.

In support of his request, the applicant submits a personal  statement
with additional documents associated with  the  issues  cited  in  his
contentions.  The applicant’s complete submission,  with  attachments,
is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Information extracted from the Personnel Data System (PDS) reveals the
applicant’s Total Active Federal Military Service Date (TAFMSD) as  30
January 1989.  He is currently serving on active duty in the grade  of
technical sergeant, with an effective date of rank of 1 November 2001.

Information extracted from applicant’s submission reveals that he  was
issued a Letter of Reprimand (LOR) by his commander on 7 December 2001
for lying to his superiors in regards  to  the  marital  status  of  a
Security Forces investigator and for applicant’s continued involvement
in  the  domestic  relationship  of  another  member.   The  applicant
submitted a rebuttal to the LOR on 9 December 2001.

Applicant's Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) profile for the last ten
reporting periods was  extracted  from  the  Military  Personnel  Data
System (MilPDS) as follows:

            Period Ending               Evaluation


        15 May 95 (grade - E-5)   5 - Immediate Promotion

         5 Apr 96      5
         5 Apr 97      5

         5 Apr 98      5

         5 Apr 99      5
         5 Apr 00      5
         5 Apr 01      4 - Ready for Promotion
       *21 Dec 01 (grade - E-6)   2 - Not Recommended
        21 Dec 02      4
         2 Jul 03      4

* Contested referral report

A similar appeal by the applicant, under Air Force  Instruction  (AFI)
36-2401, was considered and denied by  the  Evaluation  Report  Appeal
Board (ERAB) on 14 November 2002.
_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS:

HQ AFPC/DPPPE recommends the application be denied.   DPPPE  indicates
the ERAB specifically informed the applicant that he should  obtain  a
statement from the rater indicating she was coerced by the  commander;
however, he has not provided such report.  The  supporting  statements
are provided from third party individuals not in the best position  to
know exactly what transpired.  The  applicant  has  not  provided  any
supporting documentation proving the validity of the  comments/ratings
made on the contested report were in any  way  questionable.   The  HQ
AFPC/DPPPE evaluation is at Exhibit C.


HQ AFPC/DPPPWB states that, based on the applicant’s 1  November  2001
date of rank (DOR) to technical sergeant (E-6),  the  first  time  the
contested report will be considered in the promotion process is  Cycle
04E7 to master sergeant (E-7), promotions effective Aug 04 -  Jul  05.
Should the Board void the report in its entirety the  applicant  would
be entitled to supplemental consideration for cycle 04E7.  They  defer
to the recommendation of HQ AFPC/DPPPE.  The HQ AFPC/DPPPWB evaluation
is at Exhibit D.
_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS:

The applicant reviewed the advisory opinions and  indicated  that  the
rater departed before she knew  any  negative  information  was  being
written in his referral EPR  and  has  since  repeatedly  avoided  his
contact attempts.  One of his hopes in filing  the  IG  complaint  for
retribution regarding his EPR was that an investigator would obtain  a
statement from his rater and vindicate  him.   Unfortunately,  the  IG
office declined to investigate.  The facts are that his  EPR  contains
false and fabricated information.  No evidence  exists  to  prove  the
accusations on his EPR.  His complete submission, with attachment,  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 error  or  injustice.   We  are  unconvinced  by  the
evidence presented that the contested report  was  technically  flawed
when prepared, that the ratings were based on inaccurate  information,
or that the rater was coerced  to  rate  the  applicant  in  any  way.
Evaluators are required to assess a ratee’s performance, honestly  and
to the best  of  their  ability,  based  on  their  observance  of  an
individual’s performance.  We have noted the documents  provided  with
the applicant’s submission.  However, they do  not,  in  our  opinion,
support a finding that the evaluators were unable to  render  unbiased
evaluations of the applicant’s performance or that the ratings on  the
contested report were based on factors  other  than  applicant’s  duty
performance  during  the  contested  rating  period.   No   supporting
documentation has been submitted from the rater to  substantiate  that
the report was not an accurate assessment as rendered.   Additionally,
we note that, following a review of  the  applicant’s  allegations  of
reprisal, the DoD IG  determined  a  reprisal  investigation  was  not
warranted.  In view of the foregoing, and in the absence  of  evidence
to the contrary, we find no compelling basis  to  recommend  favorable
action on applicant’s request that the  contested  report  be  removed
from his records.

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(s)   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  this  application  in
Executive Session on 23 June 2004, under the  provisions  of  AFI  36-
2603:

                  Mr. Thomas S. Markiewicz, Chair
                  Ms. Cheryl V. Jacobson, Member
                  Mrs. Barbara R. Murray, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered in  connection  with
AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2004-00055.

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 1 Oct 03, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPPE, dated 15 Mar 04.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPPWB, dated 19 Mar 04.
   Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 2 Apr 04.
   Exhibit F.  Letter from Applicant, dated 6 Apr 04, w/atch.




                                   THOMAS S. MARKIEWICZ
                                   Chair