RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:                       DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2005-00514
                                        INDEX CODE:  111.02
  XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX                     COUNSEL:  NONE

  XXXXXXXXXXX                           HEARING DESIRED:  NO

MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:  15 August 2006

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His Enlisted  Performance  Report  (EPR)  rendered  for  the  period  of  10
February 2001 through 9  February  2002  be  voided  and  removed  from  his
records.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The EPR in question resulted from  an  incident  that  occurred  during  his
permanent change of  station  to  Saudi  Arabia,  in  which  a  questionable
videotape was allegedly found among the over 300 videotapes, DVDs,  and  CDs
sent over in his household baggage.  He  has  continually  voiced  the  fact
that he had no knowledge of such a tape in his possession and asked  to  see
the tape; however, he  was  told  that  the  tape  was  destroyed  by  Saudi
Customs.  He initially received a Letter of Reprimand (LOR) and  Unfavorable
Information File (UIF) for the incident and was told this  action  was  done
to satisfy all concerns about the incident.   He  regrets  having  something
unauthorized in his baggage; however, it was not  an  intentional  act.   He
got caught up in a political situation not of his own making  and  was  sent
back  to  the  United  States  to  make  peace.   His  rating  chain  overly
emphasized  the  incident,  which  resulted  in  him  receiving  a  referral
performance report over eight months following the incident.

In support of his request, the applicant submits  a  personal  statement;  a
letter  of  support  from  his  additional  rater;   and   copies   of   the
documentation surrounding his referral EPR and UIF; his application  to  the
Evaluation Reports Appeal  Board  (ERAB);  the  ERAB  decision;  performance
feedback worksheets; his APRs closing 20 December 2002, 9 February  2002,  9
February 2001, and 9 February 2000; award  of  the  Air  Force  Commendation
Medal; and an Air Combat  Command  Team  Award.   The  applicant’s  complete
submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The Military Personnel Database  (MilPDS)  indicates  the  applicant  has  a
Total Active Federal Military Service Date  of  9  December  1983.   He  has
continually served on active duty and has  been  progressively  promoted  to
the grade of technical sergeant (E-6), with a date of rank of 1  June  1998.
His projected date of separation is 2 October 2007.

The applicant received a referral  EPR  for  the  period  10  February  2001
through 9  February  2002.   According  to  a  memorandum  from  the  Chief,
Evaluation Procedures and Appeals, dated 14 May 2003,  the  ERAB  considered
and denied the applicant’s request to void his referral EPR.

The following is a resume of the applicant’s EPR profile:

      PERIOD ENDING          PROMOTION RECOMMENDATION

    14 Apr 97                     5
    10 Nov 97                     5
    01 Aug 98                     5
    01 Aug 99                     4
    09 Feb 00                     5
    09 Feb 01                     4
    09 Feb 02*                    2
    20 Dec 02                     4
    13 Oct 03                     4
    13 Oct 04                     4

* Contested report

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPP recommends denial of the  applicant’s  request  to  void  his  EPR
closing on 9 February 2002.  DPPP states that while the applicant feels  his
rating  chain  overstressed  an  isolated  incident,  they  are  obliged  to
consider such incidents, their significance, and the  frequency  with  which
they occurred  when  accessing  performance  and  potential  on  performance
reports.  The letter of support provided  from  the  applicant’s  additional
rater does not deny that a videotape was in the applicant’s possession  when
he entered Saudi Arabia, which was a violation of USCENTCOM’s General  Order
1A.  The  additional  rater  merely  disagrees  with  the  referral  EPR  as
originally written/marked.  Retrospective views of facts  and  circumstances
months or even years after a report was written will  usually  not  overcome
the  assumption  that  the  original  report  is  accurate.    Neither   the
applicant’s rater nor commander provide any type of support.

DPPP states that in the applicant’s request to the ERAB,  he  contends  that
he did not have the required  120  days  of  supervision  required  for  the
report.  The minimum number of days of supervision  is  lowered  to  60  for
referral reports versus the normal 120 days.  In  this  case,  the  referral
EPR states 129 days of supervision, which was more than  enough  to  prepare
the report.  The applicant also contends he  was  not  provided  performance
feedback.  While documented feedback sessions  are  required  by  Air  Force
Instruction (AFI), they do  not  replace  day-to-day  feedback.   A  rater’s
failure to conduct a required or requested  feedback  session,  or  document
the session on a  Performance  Feedback  Worksheet,  will  not,  of  itself,
invalidate any performance report.

DPPP states the applicant was tentatively selected for promotion  to  master
sergeant (E-7)  during  promotion  cycle  01E7.   He  received  a  promotion
selection number of 4326 which would  have  incremented  on  1  March  2002;
however, when he received the referral report,  it  automatically  cancelled
his promotion in accordance to  AFI  36-2502.,  Table  1.1,  Rule  22.   The
applicant received a  non-referral  report  closing  20  December  2002  and
tested for cycle 03E7 on 26 June 2003.  In July  2003  he  was  disqualified
from a previously awarded Air Force Specialty Code for cause, rendering  him
ineligible  for  promotion  consideration.   He  was  then  considered   and
nonselected for promotion to master sergeant during cycle 04E7.  Should  the
Board remove the referral EPR as requested, they could direct the  promotion
to master sergeant be reinstated with a date of rank and effective  date  of
1 March 2002.  The applicant would then  become  eligible  for  supplemental
promotion consideration to  senior  master  sergeant  beginning  with  cycle
04E8.  The AFPC/DPPP evaluation is at Exhibit B.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on  6  May
2005, for review and comment within 30 days.  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 an injustice.  After a  thorough  review  of  the  evidence  of
record, we are persuaded that  the  contested  report  is  not  a  fair  and
accurate reflection of the applicant’s  performance  during  the  period  in
question.  Although the applicant was charged  with  having  a  pornographic
videotape in his hold baggage during his PCS to Saudi Arabia, the video  was
not made available as evidence for the applicant’s review when he  requested
to see it.  The applicant contends he was made an example of because of  the
political situation  and  was  returned  to  a  stateside  assignment.   The
gaining commander gave him an LOR and UIF for the incident.   The  applicant
claims his commander told  him  if  he  stayed  out  of  trouble,  that  the
incident would not  affect  his  career.   One  month  later  the  applicant
received a new commander.  We note the strong letter  of  support  from  the
applicant’s additional rater that  attests  to  the  applicant’s  successful
duty performance during the period following the incident and that the  hold
baggage incident was the  only  reason  used  for  the  referral  EPR.   The
additional rater claims the referral EPR is not an  accurate  evaluation  of
the  applicant’s  performance  and  recommends  it  be  removed   from   the
applicant’s  record.   It  is  the  Board’s  opinion  that  the  rating  the
applicant  received  in  the  contested  EPR  is  disproportionate  to   the
circumstances  of  the  charged  offense  in  comparison   to   his   normal
performance and accomplishments.  In  view  of  the  foregoing,  and  in  an
effort to offset any possibility of an  injustice,  we  believe  the  record
should be corrected in favor of the applicant.  Therefore, we recommend  the
EPR be declared void and removed from his records.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:

The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air  Force  relating
to APPLICANT be corrected to show that the Enlisted Performance  Report,  AF
Form 910, rendered for the period 10 February 2001 through 9  February  2002
be, and hereby is, declared void and removed from his records.

It is further directed that his records  be  corrected  to  reflect  he  was
promoted to master sergeant (E-7) effective and with a date  of  rank  of  1
March 2002, and he be provided supplemental consideration for  promotion  to
the grade of  senior  master  sergeant  (E-8)  for  all  appropriate  cycles
beginning with cycle 04E8.

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  individual
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.

If  supplemental  promotion  consideration  results  in  the  selection  for
promotion to the higher grade, immediately after such promotion the  records
shall be corrected to show that he was promoted to the higher grade  on  the
date of rank established by  the  supplemental  promotion  and  that  he  is
entitled to all pay, allowances, and benefits  of  such  grade  as  of  that
date.

_________________________________________________________________

The following members of the Board considered this application in  Executive
Session on 11 March 2004, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

      Mr. Thomas S. Markiewicz, Chair
      Mr. Frederick R. Beaman III, Member
      Ms. Dorothy P. Loeb, Member

All members voted to correct the records,  as  recommended.   The  following
documentary evidence for AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2005-00514 was considered:

      Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 4 Feb 05, with attachments.
      Exhibit B.  Letter, AFPC/ DPPP, dated 2 May 05.
      Exhibit C.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 6 May 05.




                                                   THOMAS S. MARKIEWICZ
                                                   Chair


AFBCMR BC-2005-00514




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 XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX, be corrected to show that the Enlisted
Performance Report, AF Form 910, rendered for the period 10 February 2001
through 9 February 2002 be, and hereby is, declared void and removed from
his records.

      It is further directed that his records be corrected to reflect he
was promoted to master sergeant (E-7) effective and with a date of rank of
1 March 2002 and he be provided supplemental consideration for promotion to
the grade of senior master sergeant (E-8) for all appropriate cycles
beginning with cycle 04E8.

      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
individual 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.

      If supplemental promotion consideration results in the selection for
promotion to the higher grade, immediately after such promotion the records
shall be corrected to show that he was promoted to the higher grade on the
date of rank established by the supplemental promotion and that he is
entitled to all pay, allowances, and benefits of such grade as of that
date.





  JOE G. LINEBERGER

  Director

  Air Force Review Boards Agency