RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  04-01789
            INDEX CODE:  111.02
            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) for the period 2 April 2001 through  1
April  2002  be  declared  void  and  removed  from   his   record   and   a
reaccomplished EPR be filed in its place.
_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

His immediate supervisor told him that he was going to receive a  5  rating.
The commander at that time did not feel  he  deserved  that  rating.   Since
then, he has explained his case and now all the original raters have  agreed
to upgrade his EPR to a 5 rating.  He has used  the  evaluation  process  at
AFPC but they have twice denied his request.  Approval of this request  will
not gain him anything, but peace of mind  knowing  that  the  administrative
process does work for an enlisted member  who  wasn't  dealt  a  fair  hand.
Promotion is not a factor since he was promoted to technical sergeant  (E-6)
in June 2003.  He made rank nearly five years ahead of the normal  promotion
time because he takes his job and the Air Force seriously and he  loves  his
job with a passion.

In support of his request applicant submits a personal statement; a copy  of
his application to the Evaluation Reports Appeal  Board  (ERAB);  supporting
emails from the rater and former commander; copy of contested EPR  (2  April
2001 - 1 April 2002); a copy  of  the  reaccomplished  EPR;  copies  of  his
performance feedback worksheet  for  the  periods  30  August  2001  and  11
February 2002; and, copies of his EPRs for the periods ending 1  April  2003
and 1 April 2004.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The Military Personnel Data System (MilPDS) indicates  applicant  reenlisted
in the Regular Air Force on 6 June 2003 for a period of six years.   He  has
been progressively promoted  to  the  grade  of  technical  sergeant  (E-6),
effective and with a date of rank 1 July 2004.

A similar appeal by the applicant was considered and  denied  by  the  ERAB.
The following is a resume of his EPR profile:

      PERIOD ENDING          PROMOTION RECOMMENDATION

    01 Apr 00                     5
    01 Apr 01                     5
    01 Apr 02                     4 (contested report)
    01 Apr 03                     5
    01 Apr 04                     5

On 17 April 2002, the applicant’s commander imposed  nonjudicial  punishment
on the applicant for violation of Article 95, for  resisting  arrest  on  or
about 10 March 2002.  The punishment consisted of a reduction  in  grade  to
senior airman, suspended until 14 May 2002 when, unless sooner  vacated,  it
would be remitted without further action, forfeiture of $876.00 pay  and  30
days of restriction to Osan Air Base, Republic of Korea.  On 23 April  2002,
after  considering  the  applicant’s  appeal,  the  commander  modified  the
punishment of forfeiture of pay to $438.00 and restriction  to  base  to  23
days.  The foregoing proceedings were reviewed and found legally  sufficient
by the Assistant Staff Judge Advocate on 24 April 2002.

The remaining relevant facts pertaining to his previous application  to  the
Board requesting  that  his  nonjudicial  punishment  under  Article  15  be
removed from his records are contained  in  the  Record  of  Proceedings  at
Exhibit B.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPPE recommends the application be  denied.   DPPPE  states  that  the
applicant had  an  off  duty  incident/altercation  with  a  member  of  the
security forces during the contested rating period.  DPPPE is not clear  why
the applicant believes that the incident should not have been considered  by
the  evaluators  when  rendering  the  contested  report.   The   supporting
statements all acknowledge the incident took place and their support  months
after  the  fact  are  merely  retrospective  reviews.   DPPPE  states  that
although the applicant may feel that his  evaluators  have  overstressed  an
isolated incident, or short period of substandard  performance  or  conduct,
the evaluators are obliged to consider such incidents,  their  significance,
and the frequency with which they  occurred  in  assessing  performance  and
potential.  DPPPE notes that the commander who administered the  Article  15
has not been heard from, apparently the Article 15  was  not  set-aside  and
that unit commander does not  support  action  to  correct  the  performance
report.  The AFPC/DPPPE evaluation is at Exhibit C.

AFPC/DPPPW states that the first time the contested report was used  in  the
promotion process was cycle  03E6  to  TSgt.   The  applicant  was  promoted
during that cycle and will pin on 1 July 2004.  The next time the  contested
report will be used in the promotion process will be  cycle  06E7  to  MSgt.
DPPPW states that substantial evidence is required to prove  the  report  is
erroneous  or  unjust  based  on  its  content.   Retrospective   views   of
evaluators should not be viewed favorably.  The AFPC/DPPPW evaluation is  at
Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Applicant states that his MPF Commander and Superintendent pleaded with  the
commander  that  an  Article  15  was  an  unnecessary  use  of  punishment.
However, he disagreed and consequently, his EPR was downgraded.  His  rating
chain  of  command  that  initially  wrote  the  EPR  did  not   take   into
consideration the  mitigating  circumstances  and  new  testimony  from  two
witnesses who were present at the time of  the  alleged  incident.   He  was
going to receive a perfect 5  rating  across  the  board  on  the  contested
report, but when he received the EPR after he left Korea, it was  downgraded
to a 4.

He asks the Board to give him a fair hand and consider his request  with  an
open mind and an understanding that his raters have had a change  of  heart.
He takes his Air Force career  seriously  and  was  not  a  wild  disorderly
person during the contested reporting period.  The applicant’s letter 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.  Applicant  contends  that  undue  emphasis
placed on an isolated incident tainted his chain of command’s perception  of
his performance, which resulted in an unfair rating.   His  contentions  are
duly noted; however, we do  not  find  the  evidence  provided  sufficiently
persuasive to override the evidence of record and the rationale provided  by
the Air Force.  We are not convinced by  the  evidence  presented  that  the
contested report was technically flawed when prepared  or  that  the  rating
was based on inaccurate information.  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 during the rating period  in
question.  We have noted the rater’s statement that the commander returned
the report for further consideration.  As a rater and the direct  supervisor
to the applicant, this evaluator had the right to resubmit the  report  with
the 5 rating he alleges he assigned yet it appears he chose not  to  do  so.
Neither the applicant nor the rater have provided evidence which would  lead
us to believe his decision in this regard was coerced in  any  way.   As  to
the statement by the commander, it appears that he now views the  report  as
an overly harsh assessment of  the  events  precipitating  the  ratings  the
applicant  received.   In  our  estimation,  his  statement  constitutes   a
retrospective judgment based on an assessment that  has  mellowed  with  the
passage of time.  Therefore, we do not  find  his  statement  sufficient  to
warrant approval of the requested relief in the absence of some  information
now at the commander’s disposal to which he was not privy at  the  time  the
report was written.  Of note, too, is the fact  that  the  additional  rater
has not provided supportive comments for our review.  The  applicant’s  good
work performance is not being disputed and is  reflected  in  the  contested
report; however, evaluation reports evaluate the “whole person,” to  include
on and off duty conduct.  Therefore, in view of the foregoing,  and  in  the
absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no basis to recommend  granting
the relief sought in this application.

_________________________________________________________________

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 15 September 2004 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

                 Mr. Laurence M. Groner, Panel Chair
                 Ms. Jean A. Reynolds, Member
                 Ms. Carolyn B. Willis, Member

     Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 25 May 04, w/atchs.
     Exhibit B.  Record of Proceedings, dated 22 May 03.
     Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPE/DPPPW dated 22 Jun 04.
     Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 1 Jul 04.
     Exhibit F.  Letter, Applicant, dated 7 Jul 04.


                                  LAURENCE M. GRONER
                                  Panel Chair