RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2004-01785
            INDEX NUMBER:  111.02

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

Her Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) rendered for the period 23 Oct
97 through 12 May 00, reflecting an overall promotion recommendation
of “4” be removed from her records  and  the  reaccomplished  report
reflecting an overall promotion recommendation of “5” be substituted
in its place.

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

Undue emphasis was placed on an isolated incident  and  should  not
have affected her performance  report.   She  feels  this  isolated
incident has adversely affected two reporting periods.

In support  of  her  request,  the  applicant  submits  a  personal
statement, and a copy of her application to the Evaluation  Reports
Appeal Board (ERAB), which included a supporting statement from the
rater on the contested report.

The  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
senior airman.

Applicant’s EPR profile follows:

               Period Ending      Overall Promotion Evaluation

      (SrA)  * 12 May 2000                   4
             # 12 May 2001                   4
           12 May 2002                  5
           12 May 2003                  5
           12 May 2004                  5

* Contested Report

# The  ERAB  deleted  the  referral  comment  “Due  to  inadvertent
security disclosure received LOR; developed  a  keen  awareness  of
security obligations,” from the report closing 12 May 01.

___________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

HQ AFPC/DPPPE recommends the application be denied.   DPPPE  states
applicant’s contention undue emphasis was  placed  on  an  isolated
incident has not been substantiated.  There  was  no  documentation
proving that  applicant’s  evaluators  placed  any  undue  emphasis
concerning her failure to properly secure  classified  material  as
nothing was documented on her report pertaining  to  the  incident.
The ERAB did note applicant’s 12 May 01 report contained a referral
comment stating, “Due to inadvertent security  disclosure  received
LOR.”  This statement in itself  strongly  indicates  the  security
violation incident was considered  during  the  12  May  01  report
versus the 12 May 00 report the applicant  is  contesting.   (Note:
Although not relevant to the 12 May 00  report  the  applicant  was
contesting, the ERAB removed the security comment from the  12  May
01 report because it was not  properly  referred).   Regardless  of
which reporting report the incident was considered, it  was  within
the evaluators’ rights and obligation to consider.

HQ AFPC/DPPPW states the first time the contested report  was  used
in  the  promotion  process  was  cycle  01E5  to  staff  sergeant.
Applicant’s total score was  228.95  and  the  required  score  for
promotion in her AFSC was 247.12.  The required score for promotion
in her AFSC for cycle 02E5 was  265.79  and  her  total  score  was
225.64.  The applicant’s total score for cycle 03E5 was 265.66  and
the score required for promotion in her AFSC  was  270.33.   Should
the Board grant the applicant’s request to upgrade her report to  a
rating of “5,” she would become a select for cycle 01E5 with a  DOR
of 1 Apr 02.  Based on this DOR, she would  then  be  eligible  for
supplemental promotion consideration to TSgt beginning  with  cycle
04E6.

A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation is at Exhibit C.

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Applicant has reiterated  her  contentions,  further  stating  it
appears as though the point of her application was lost among the
various correspondences made between herself and  the  review  at
AFPC.  She further goes on to explain each document submitted  in
her package.

Applicant also states  she  agrees  with  the  Air  Force  advisory,
however, the field “Basis for Request” should read,  “The  applicant
contends that undue emphasis was placed on an isolated incident  and
should not have affected TWO performance reports.”  What is  written
in the field is not accurate.

Applicant’s response to Air Force evaluation is at Exhibit E.

___________________________________________________________________

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 have noted the
documents provided by the applicant, including the  statement  from
the rater on the contested report.  However,  these  documents,  in
our opinion, do not support a finding that the markdowns in Section
III (Evaluation of Performance)  and  the  ratings  in  Section  IV
(Promotion  Recommendation)  were  based  solely  on  the  security
incident that occurred during the period in  question.   Therefore,
we agree with the opinion  and  recommendation  of  the  Air  Force
office of primary responsibility and adopt their rationale  as  the
basis for our conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim
of an error or injustice and that there is no basis upon  which  to
recommend favorable action on her request.

4.  Notwithstanding  the  above  determination,  if  the  applicant
believes that her subsequent EPR closing 12 May 2001 is in error or
unjust and she requests that it be removed from  her  records,  the
Board would be willing to entertain such a request.

___________________________________________________________________

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-2004-
01785  in  Executive  Session  on  1  September  2004,  under   the
provisions of AFI 36-2603:

      Mr. Thomas S. Markiewicz, Chair
      Mr. John E. B. Smith, Member
      Ms. Kathy L. Boockholdt, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 25 May 04, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPE, dated 23 Jul 04.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 30 Jul 04.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, Applicant, dated 23 Aug 04.




                                   THOMAS S. MARKIEWICZ
                                   Chair