ADDENDUM TO
                            RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:                       DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2003-03377
                                             INDEX CODE:  111.00, 131.00
                                             COUNSEL:  NONE
                                             HEARING DESIRED:  NO

MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 16 FEB 07

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

1.  Her Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) prepared for the period 2  Mar  02
through 1 Mar 03, be removed from her records.

2.  She be supplementally considered for promotion to the  grade  of  master
sergeant.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

In a previous appeal, applicant requested the following:

1.  She be reinstated to the grade of  master  sergeant  with  her  original
effective date.

2.  She be reimbursed for all lost pay and allowances.

3.  Any record of derogatory data be removed from her personnel records  and
Enlisted Performance Report (EPR).

4.  She be awarded the Meritorious Service Medal  (MSM)  for  her  permanent
change-of-station move.

5.  She be supplementally considered for promotion to the  grade  of  senior
master sergeant for the 03E8 and 04E8 promotion cycles.

Her appeal was considered on 8 Oct 04, and by a  majority  vote,  the  Board
denied  her  request.   For  an  account  of  the  facts  and  circumstances
surrounding  her  appeal  and  the  Board's  decision,  see  the  Record  of
Proceedings at Exhibit L.

In her most recent submission, applicant states the EPR  was  not  processed
in accordance with AFI 36-2406,  Officer  and  Enlisted  Evaluation  System.
The report was not referred  to  her  a  second  time  upon  the  additional
rater's referral comments.  Had the report been  processed  accordingly  the
outcome may have been significantly different.  The  rebuttal  comments  she
would have provided may have  persuaded  the  evaluators  to  upgrade  their
ratings and/or invalidated the referral comments.   In  addition,  the  date
the rater signed the report is inaccurate.  It shows a March 2002 date  when
the report covered a period ending March 2003.

In support of her  request,  applicant  provided  a  personal  statement,  a
statement of support, copies of the contested EPR, copies of  EPRs  rendered
between March 2000 and March 2005, and  documentation  associated  with  her
Evaluation Reports Appeal Board (ERAB) decision.  Her  complete  submission,
with attachments, is at Exhibit M.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPP recommends denial.  DPPP states the report  was  referred  to  the
applicant by the rater  for  markings  in  Section  III,  Block  6  and  the
comments, "reprimanded/demoted for fraudulent  instructor  certification  as
ALS flight chief-placed back in PAFSC" and "despite  administrative  action,
TSgt  W---  has  stayed  involved  and  motivated."   This  information  was
specifically annotated in  the  referral  memorandum  to  the  member.   The
additional rater makes the comments "through a  preponderance  of  evidence,
it was determined TSgt W---  knowingly  submitted  her  faculty  folder  for
inspection with fraudulent documents-Her demotion  was  upheld  by  the  509
BW/CC."

The AFI states "a report will be referred more than once when  a  subsequent
evaluator gives additional referral ratings or comments."  DPPP  states  the
evaluators have processed  the  report  accurately.   The  additional  rater
comments on  the  demotion  which  the  rater  mentions  as  "administrative
actions."  The information provided by the additional rater only  reiterates
the comments from the rater and does not provide additional information.

DPPP notes the signature date of the rater in fact shows a date  of  10  Mar
02 when it should show 10 Mar 03 and recommends the report be  corrected  to
reflect such.

The DPPP evaluation is at Exhibit N.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The advisory opinion does not dispute the  fact  that  the  report  was  not
referred  to  her  a  second  time  upon  the  additional  rater's  referral
comments.  DPPPEP does provide further evidence  that  the  report  was  not
processed in accordance with  the  instruction.   AFI  36-2406,  Chapter  3,
Table  3.2  states  "provide  comments  that  add  meaning...Do  not  repeat
comments provided in previous section..."   The  comments  provided  by  the
additional rater did in fact add information to the report and  changed  the
content/meaning.  The rater made no mention within her comments of  evidence
to any degree used in determining any  inappropriate  action  on  her  part,
submission and/or  inspection  of  her  faculty  folder,  nor  provided  any
information in regards to who was or was not involved in the  administrative
demotion proceedings.  In accordance with AFI 36-2406, this  information  is
derogatory  in  nature,  implies  behavior  incompatible   with   acceptable
standards, violates the guidance  in  regards  to  prohibited  comments  and
required the referral procedures to  be  reaccomplished  by  the  additional
rater.

Her complete response is at Exhibit P.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

Insufficient  relevant  evidence  has  been  presented  to  demonstrate  the
existence of an error or injustice warranting corrective  action.   After  a
thorough review of the documentation provided  in  support  of  her  appeal,
along with the evidence of record, the Board majority is  not  persuaded  by
her  contentions  that  the  contested  report  is  erroneous,  unjust,   or
technically flawed.  The  applicant's  argument  that  the  report  was  not
processed in accordance with  the  applicable  instruction  is  duly  noted.
However, the Board majority finds no evidence which would  substantiate  her
claim.  Evidence has not been presented which would lead the Board  majority
to believe that the contested report is not a true and  accurate  assessment
of her  performance  during  the  specified  period  or  that  the  comments
contained in the report were in error or contrary to the provisions  of  the
governing instruction.  Therefore, the Board majority agrees  with  the  Air
Force office  of  primary  responsibility  that  the  report  was  processed
appropriately and adopts their rationale as the basis for  their  conclusion
that the applicant has not been the victim of an  error  or  injustice.   In
the absence of evidence  to  the  contrary,  the  Board  majority  finds  no
compelling  reason  to  recommend  granting  the  relief  sought   in   this
application.  The Board notes the contested report contains  an  error  with
respect to the date the report  was  signed  by  the  rater,  but  has  been
advised the  error  is  administrative  in  nature  and  will  be  corrected
accordingly.

_________________________________________________________________

RECOMMENDATION OF THE BOARD:

A majority of the panel finds insufficient evidence of  error  or  injustice
and recommends the application be denied.

_________________________________________________________________

The following members of the Board considered  Docket  Number  BC-2003-03377
in Executive Session on 22 Nov 05, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

      Mr. Richard A. Peterson, Panel Chair
      Ms. Renee M. Collier, Member
      Ms. Barbara R. Murray, Member

By a majority vote, the Board voted to deny the request.  Ms. Collier  voted
to correct the record as requested and did not  submit  a  minority  report.
The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit L.  Record of Proceedings, dated 8 Oct 04, w/Exhibits.
    Exhibit M.  DD Form 149, dated 12 Aug 05, w/atchs.
    Exhibit N.  Letter, AFPC/DPDPPP, dated 6 Oct 05.
    Exhibit O.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 14 Oct 05.
    Exhibit P.  Letter, Applicant, dated 19 Oct 05.




                                             RICHARD A. PETERSON
                                             Panel Chair
                   AFBCMR BC-2003-03377

MEMORANDUM FOR   THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF
                   MILITARY RECORDS (AFBCMR)

SUBJECT:    AFBCMR Application of

      I have carefully reviewed all aspects of this case and do not agree
with the opinion of the majority of the panel that the applicant’s request
should be denied in its entirety.

      Applicant requests that her Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) closing
1 March 2003, be declared void and removed from her records and that she be
granted supplemental promotion consideration to the grade of master
sergeant.  Applicant contends that comments made by the additional rater in
Section VI of the report are referral in nature and the report should have
been referred to her a second time.  The Air Force Personnel Center,
Evaluations Procedures and Appeals Branch, in its evaluation of the
applicant’s appeal opined that the comments of the additional rater are not
referral in nature noting that in accordance with AFI 36-2406 "A report
will be referred more than once when a subsequent evaluator gives
additional referral ratings or comments."  The evaluator states that the
comments of the additional rater only reiterate the comments of the rater
and does not provide additional information.  In her rebuttal to the Air
Force evaluation, the applicant counters that in accordance with the
comments of the evaluator, the processing of the report is flawed because
AFI 36-2406, Table 3.2 states "Do not repeat comments provided in previous
sections."

      The Board majority agrees with the evaluator and recommends the
applicant’s request be denied in its entirety.  While I am inclined to
agree with the Board majority that the applicant’s argument is
insufficiently persuasive to warrant removal of the report from her
records, I believe that some corrective action is appropriate in this case.
 It appears that in her rebuttal to the Air Force evaluation, the applicant
has established reasonable doubt as to whether or not the comments of the
additional rater are contradictory to the governing instruction and I
believe the benefit of any doubt should be resolved in her favor.
Accordingly it is my decision that the questionable comments of the
additional rater be stricken from the contested report.






                                  JOE G. LINEBERGER
                                  Director


AFBCMR BC-2003-03377




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 APPLICANT, be corrected to show the Enlisted Performance Report
closing 1 March 2003, be amended in Section VI, Additional Rater's
Comments, to delete the comment "Through a preponderance of evidence, it
was determined XXXXXXX knowingly submitted her faculty folder for
inspection with fraudulent documents--Her demotion was upheld by the 509
BW/CC."






                                       JOE G. LINEBERGER
                                       Director
                                       Air Force Review Boards Agency