RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2003-02688
            INDEX NUMBER: 111.02, 111.05

      XXXXXXX    COUNSEL:  NONE

      XXXXXXX    HEARING DESIRED:  NO


_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

The Enlisted Performance Report (EPR), rendered for the period 22 July  2000
through 17 June 2001, be removed from his records.

_________________________________________________________________

THE APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

His performance during the contested  period  was  limited  due  to  the  23
different medications he was taking for his  respiratory  problems.   During
the period of  the  report,  his  condition  required  his  hospitalization,
numerous testings by various specialists, and duty restrictions for over  55
days.  The report has halted his 20 years of outstanding performance in  the
Air Force.

In support of the appeal, applicant submits a statement  from  the  reviewer
of the contested report,  the  primary  care  physician  that  provided  him
treatment, and extracts from his medical records.

The  reviewer  states  the  last  line  of  the  additional  rater  comments
incorrectly states the applicant was  enrolled  in  Fire  Inspector  II  and
Instructor II training, when in fact the training  was  “grandfathered”  for
firemen who had taken a course under the  previous  training  program  which
the applicant had already completed.  In view of this, he should  have  been
given credit and the report contains an error.  The reviewer further  states
that in retrospect, and with  the  benefit  of  another  year  of  reviewing
performance  reports,  he  feels  the  overall  rating  of  “4”  would  more
accurately reflect his performance.

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  master
sergeant.

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

Applicant’s performance profile follows:

             PERIOD ENDING               OVERALL RATING

               12 Apr 93                       5
               12 Apr 94                       5
               16 Jan 95                       5
               16 Jan 96                       5
               16 Jan 97                       5
               28 Jan 98                       5
               28 Jan 99                       5
               28 Jan 00                       5
               21 Jul 00                       5
            *  17 Jun 01                       3
               17 Jun 02                       5

* Contested EPR

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS:

AFPC/DPPPWB states, in part, that a member  will  not  normally  be  granted
supplemental promotion consideration if the error or  omission  appeared  on
his/her Data Verification Record (DVR)  or  in  the  Unit  Personnel  Record
Group (UPRG), and the member did not  take  the  appropriate  corrective  or
follow-up action before the original board  convened.   In  the  applicant’s
case, he did not appeal through the ERAB until after the board convened  for
the 02E8 cycle.  The first  time  the  contested  report  was  used  in  the
promotion process was cycle 02E8; therefore, should the AFBCMR  removed  the
contested report, it could direct his supplemental  promotion  consideration
beginning with cycle 02E8.

The AFPC/DPPPWB evaluation is at Exhibit C.

AFPC/DPPPEP recommends the application be denied and states, in  part,  that
although it is unfortunate the applicant’s medical condition  may  have  led
to his performance inadequacies,  there  is  no  evidence  to  indicate  the
report is not a fair  and  accurate  assessment  of  his  performance.   The
reviewer  of  the  report  has  provided  a  statement  indicating  that  in
retrospect an overall promotion recommendation of “4” is  more  appropriate;
however, retrospective views should not be used as the basis to  change  the
original  assessment  by  evaluators  at  the  time  reports  are  rendered.
However,  if  the  AFBCMR  is  inclined  to  credit  the  commander  with  a
retrospective  view,  they  recommend  upgrading  the   additional   rater’s
promotion recommendation to a “4,” rather than voiding the entire report.

The AFPC/DPPPEP evaluation is at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS:

Complete  copies  of  the  Air  Force  evaluations  were  forwarded  to  the
applicant on 21 November 2003  for  review  and  response  within  30  days.
However, as of this date, this office has received no response.

_________________________________________________________________

ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The BCMR Medical Consultant is  of  the  opinion  the  contribution  of  the
applicant’s medical problems can be considered by the  AFBCMR.   However,  a
review of his service medical record fails to show evidence  he  experienced
adverse effects of the prescribed medications.  During  the  period  of  the
report,  he  experienced  chronic  cough  and  anxiety  problems   requiring
frequent  medical  appointments.   While  medical  problems  may  result  in
decrements of duty performance, this does not  necessarily  warrant  a  duty
performance rating that reflects what the duty performance might  have  been
had the medical problem  not  been  present.   Whereas,  bona  fide  medical
conditions limiting duty performance may be noted in the performance  report
and not serve as a basis for an unduly negative report.

The BCMR Medical Consultant evaluation is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A complete copy of the additional Air Force evaluation was forwarded to  the
applicant on 19 February 2004  for  review  and  response  within  30  days.
However, as of this date, this office has received no response.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

1.  The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by existing law or
regulations.

2.  The application was timely filed.

3.  Sufficient relevant evidence  has  been  presented  to  demonstrate  the
existence of error or injustice to warrant upgrading the  overall  promotion
recommendation to a “4,” and removing the last sentence  of  the  additional
rater’s comments.  In this respect, we note the reviewer  of  the  contested
report states that an overall rating of “4”  more  accurately  reflects  the
applicant’s performance.  The Chief, Evaluation Procedures and  Appeals  has
reviewed this statement and concurs  with  the  recommended  change  if  the
Board is inclined to credit the reviewer with  a  retrospective  view.   The
reviewer also states the  last  line  of  the  additional  rater’s  comments
incorrectly states the applicant was  enrolled  in  Fire  Inspector  II  and
Instructor II training, when in fact the training  was  “grandfathered”  for
firemen who had taken a course under the previous training  program.   Since
the applicant had already completed the previous training program, the  last
line of the additional rater’s comments is incorrect.  In view of  this  and
based on the comments of the reviewer, we recommend the contested report  be
corrected to the extent indicated below.   We  also  recommend  that  he  be
provided supplemental consideration for promotion to  the  grade  of  senior
master sergeant for  all  appropriate  cycles  beginning  with  cycle  02E8.
Although the applicant requests the  entire  report  be  declared  void,  we
believe the recommended changes to the report  will  provide  him  full  and
fitting relief.  His medical treatment during the rating period as  detailed
in the statement from his primary care physician is duly noted; however,  we
are not persuaded his level of performance was the result of the  medication
he was administered or the treatment he received.  As indicated by the  BCMR
Medical  Consultant,  his  medical  record  fails  to   show   evidence   he
experienced adverse effects of the prescribed  medications.   Therefore,  we
recommend the applicant’s records  be  corrected  to  the  extent  indicated
below.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT:

The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air  Force  relating
to APPLICANT be corrected to  show  that  the  Senior  Enlisted  Performance
Report, AF Form 911, rendered for the period 22 July 2000  through  17  June
2001, be amended in  Section  IV,  Promotion  Recommendations,  Rater’s  and
Additional Rater’s Recommendations, to  reflect  “4,”  and  in  Section  VI,
Additional    Rater’s    Comments,    by    deleting    the    last    line:
“Enrolled . . . progress”.

It is further recommended that he  be  provided  supplemental  consideration
for  promotion  to  the  grade  of  senior  master  sergeant  for  all   the
appropriate cycles beginning with cycle 02E8.




If AFPC discovers any adverse factors during or subsequent  to  supplemental
consideration that are separate and  apart,  and  unrelated  to  the  issues
involved in  this  application,  that  would  have  rendered  the  applicant
ineligible for the  promotion,  such  information  will  be  documented  and
presented to the  board  for  a  final  determination  on  the  individual's
qualification for the promotion.

_________________________________________________________________

The following members of the Board considered  Docket  Number  BC-2003-02688
in Executive Session on 1 April 2004, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

                       Mr. Roscoe Hinton, Jr., Panel Chair
                       Ms. Martha A. Maust, Member
                       Mr. Vance E. Lineberger, Member

All members voted to correct the records,  as  recommended.   The  following
documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 4 Aug 03, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPWB, dated 7 Oct 03.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPEP, dated 29 Oct 03.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 21 Nov 03.
    Exhibit F.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 12 Feb 04.
    Exhibit G.  Letter, BCMR Medical Consultant, dated 17 Feb 04.
    Exhibit H.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 19 Feb 04.




                                   ROSCOE HINTON, JR.
                                   Panel Chair
AFBCMR BC-2003-02688




MEMORANDUM FOR THE CHIEF OF STAFF

      Having received and considered the recommendation of the Air Force
Board for Correction of Military Records and under the authority of Section
1552, Title 10, United States Code (70A Stat 116), it is directed that:

      The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force
relating to XXXXXXX, XXXXXXX, be corrected to show that the Senior Enlisted
Performance Report, AF Form 911, rendered for the period 22 July 2000
through 17 June 2001, be, and hereby is, amended in Section IV, Promotion
Recommendation, Rater’s and Additional Rater’s Recommendations, to reflect
“4,” and in Section VI, Additional Rater’s Comments, by deleting the last
line: “Enrolled . . . progress”.

      It is further directed that he be provided supplemental consideration
for promotion to the grade of senior master sergeant for all the
appropriate cycles beginning with cycle 02E8.

      If AFPC discovers any adverse factors during or subsequent to
supplemental consideration that are separate and apart, and unrelated to
the issues involved in this application, that would have rendered the
applicant ineligible for the promotion, such information will be documented
and presented to the board for a final determination on the individual's
qualification for the promotion.








JOE G. LINEBERGER

Director

Air Force Review Boards Agency