RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2004-03682
            INDEX CODE:  111.02
      xxxxxxxxxxxxxx   COUNSEL:  NONE

      xxxxxxxxxxxxx    HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________


APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

The enlisted performance report (EPR) closing  out  23  July  2002  be
replaced with a corrected report.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The rater’s original intent was to indicate “Promote Now”.

In support of his request, the applicant provided a copy of a proposed
replacement EPR, a copy of the contested EPR and a statement from  the
rater and reviewing official on the contested report.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force as an airman basic  on
26 June 1986 and was progressively promoted to  the  grade  of  master
sergeant with a date of rank of 1 October 1994.

A profile of the applicant’s EPR’s follows:

                   PERIOD ENDINGS                  OVERALL RATING


                  23 Jul 04                      5

                  23 Jul 03                      5

                 *23 Jul 02                      5

                  25 Oct 01                      5

                  25 Oct 00                      5




* Contested report

_________________________________________________________________



AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPP recommends  denial.   DPPP  states  evaluation  reports  are
considered accurate as written  unless  substantial  evidence  to  the
contrary is provided.  As such, they receive exhaustive reviews  prior
to becoming a matter of record.  Any  report  can  be  written  to  be
harder hitting, to provide  embellishments,  or  enhance  the  ratee’s
promotion potential.  But the time to do that  is  before  the  report
becomes a matter of record.  None of the supporters of the applicant’s
appeal explain how they  were  hindered  from  rendering  a  fair  and
accurate assessment of the applicant’s performance prior to the report
being made a matter of record.  The appeals process does not exist  to
recreate history or enhance chances for promotion.  It appears this is
exactly what the applicant is attempting to do--recreate history.   As
such, DPPP is not convinced the contested report is  not  accurate  as
written  and  they  do  not  support  the  request  for  removal   and
replacement

DPPP further states the applicant agrees with the  decision  that  the
time to dispute an EPR  is  before  it  became  a  matter  of  record.
However, he is disputing the promotion statement stating  it  was  the
rater’s intent to place “Promote Now” on the  report.   The  contested
report  was  written  in  September  2002  prior  to  the  information
management  tools  (IMT)  forms  being  available  in  October   2003.
Reviewing the actual report, there was not enough space to  place  the
comment “Promote Now” statement.  This leads the ERAB  to  believe  it
was not the rater’s “original” intent to place  the  comment  “Promote
Now” because all the evaluators did not have the  room  to  make  that
statement on the report.

A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant disagrees with the DPPP and ERAB assessments that it was
not the rater’s original intent to place  the  comment  “Promote  Now”
because all the  evaluators  did  not  have  the  room  to  make  that
statement on the report.  The enclosed supporting  document  from  his
former rater states, “I understood at the time I was writing this  EPR
that the promotion statement “Promote” had equal strength  and  impact
as the promotion statement “Promote Now.”  He believes the space issue
on the report is an inconsequential issue.

Applicant’s complete response 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  carefully  considered  the
applicant’s complete submission in judging the merits of the  case  to
include the comments from the rater and reviewer; however, we are  not
persuaded that the  contested  report  should  be  declared  void  and
replaced with a reaccomplished report.  We agree with the opinions and
recommendation of the Air Force office of primary  responsibility  and
adopt its rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant
has not been the victim of an error or an  injustice.   Therefore,  in
the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no  compelling  basis
to recommend granting the relief sought.

_________________________________________________________________

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 24 February 2005, under the provisions of AFI 36-
2603:

                 Mr. Michael J. Novel, Panel Chair
                 Mr. John E. Pettit, Member
                 Ms. Carolyn B. Willis, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

      Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 24 Nov 2004, w/atchs.
      Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
      Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPPP, dated 4 Jan 05.
      Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 7 Jan 05.
      Exhibit E. Letter, Applicant, dated 12 Jan 05.




      MICHAEL J. NOVEL
      Panel Chair

AFBCMR BC-2004-03682



MEMORANDUM FOR THE CHIEF OF STAFF

      Having reviewed 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 xxxxxxxxxxxx, be corrected to show that the Senior Enlisted
Performance Report (EPR), AF IMT 911, rendered for the period 26 October
2001 through 23 July 2002, be, and hereby is, declared void and removed
from his records; and the attached EPR rendered for the period 26 October
2001 through 23 July 2003, reflecting the last sentence in Section VII,
Reviewer’s Comments, “Promote Now,” be inserted in his records in its
proper sequence.

      It is further directed that he be provided supplemental consideration
for promotion to the grade of senior master sergeant for all appropriate
cycles beginning with cycle 03E8.

      If selected for promotion to senior master sergeant by supplemental
consideration, he be provided any additional supplemental consideration
required as a result of that selection.

      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 qualifications for the promotion.




                             JOE G. LINEBERGER
                             Director
                             Air Force Review Boards Agency

Attachment:
Reaccomplished EPR

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

FROM: SAF/MR

SUBJECT:    AFBCMR Case of XXXXXXXXXXXXXX

      I have carefully considered all of the circumstances of this case and
do not agree with the AFBCMR panel that the applicant’s requests should be
denied.  I note the applicant requests the enlisted performance report
(EPR) closing 23 July 2002, be replaced with an EPR that changes the
rater’s and the reviewer’s promotion statement from “Promote” to Promote
Now”.

      Applicant contends that while assigned to the USAF Band of the
Rockies, his rating chain’s original intent was to indicate “Promote Now”
on the contested EPR.  In support of his contention he submits supporting
statements from his rater and the reviewing official.  The Office of
Primary Responsibility (OPR) recommends denial, stating evaluation reports
are considered accurate as written unless substantial evidence to the
contrary is provided.  They speculate the raters are attempting to make
these changes in order to provide the applicant another opportunity to
compete for promotion.  The AFBCMR panel adopts the rationale of the OPR as
the basis for its decision to deny relief.  I disagree.

      The rater and the reviewer state the promotion statement “Promote” in
the Rater’s and the Reviewer’s comments block of the EPR did not accurately
portray the strength of the applicant’s excellent performance during the
period in question.  The rater also indicates that at the time he was
writing the EPR he understood the statement “Promote” to have equal
strength and impact as “Promote Now”.  In view of the foregoing and in the
absence of a basis to question the integrity of these individuals, the
benefit of the doubt should be resolved in the applicant’s favor.
Accordingly, it is my decision that his request be approved. Further, since
the substituted EPR may have been a factor in his failure to be selected
for promotion to senior master sergeant, he should also be provided
supplemental promotion consideration for all appropriate cycles.

                                       MICHAEL L. DOMINGUEZ
                                       Assistant Secretary
                                       (Manpower & Reserve Affairs)


                          SAF/MR STAFF ACTION SHEET
|SUBJECT: PACKAGE:  AFBCMR Case of        |EXTERNAL CONTROL #:                    |
|                                         |SAF/MR #:                              |
|                                         |SAF/MR DUE DATE:                       |
|ROUTING SEQUENCE                                 |ACTION REQUIRED                |
|2   |ASAF               |    |MA                 |2     |Signature               |
|    |PD                 |    |XO                 |1     |Review/Coordinate       |
|    |MRM                |    |Copy To:           |      |For Information Only.   |
|    |MRE                |1   |MRB Atty           |      |Other:_____________     |
|    |MRR                |    |                   |      |                        |
|1   |MRB                |    |                   |      |                        |


BACKGROUND SUMMARY:  Applicant requests the EPR, closing 23 Jul 02, be
replaced with a reaccomplished report.  He alleges his rater’s original
intent was to indicate he was ready for immediate promotion, but the
statement “Promote” instead of “Promote Now” did not reflect that message.
The rater and reviewer submitted a statement to support the applicant’s
contention.

The Office of Primary Responsibility (OPR) recommends denial, stating
evaluation reports are considered accurate as written unless substantial
evidence to the contrary is provided.  They speculate the raters are
attempting to make these changes in order to provide the applicant another
opportunity to compete for promotion.  The AFBCMR panel adopts the
rationale of the OPR as the basis for its decision to deny relief.

PURPOSE:  To forward a proposed memorandum overturning the Board’s decision
to deny the applicant’s request.

View of DAS:  Having no basis to question the integrity of the rating
chain, the DAS believes the benefit of any doubt should be resolved in the
applicant’s favor by granting his request.

Recommendation:  ASAF sign the attached proposed memorandum.

Action Officer/Office:  Mr. Burton/AFBCMR/DSN 857-3502
Date of preparation:  23 October 2005   DAS
Signature/Date:__________________________
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------
PRINCIPAL DEPUTY COMMENTS:


                                        Initial/Date:
____________________________________
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------
ASSISTANT SECRETARY COMMENTS:


Initial/Date:__________________________________________
Revised 15 August 2001; previous editions obsolete.