RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2006-01716
            INDEX CODE:  111.05

      xxxxxxxxxxx      COUNSEL:  NOT INDICATED

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO

MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:  10 DEC 2007

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

The Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) closing out on 30  September  2005  be
declared void and removed from her records.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The report is not a fair assessment of  her  performance;  the  ratings  are
based on false allegations, and also contain administrative errors.

In support of her request, the  applicant  provided  a  personal  statement,
copy of statement Reason for  Appeal  of  Referral  EPR,  AF  IMT  Form  910
Enlisted Performance Report, a Rebuttal to  Referral  Report  Memorandum,  a
Letter of Appreciation, AF Form IMT  931,  Performance  Feedback  Worksheet,
five Letters of Recommendation and  excerpts  from  her  military  personnel
records.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air  Force  in  the  grade  of  airman
basic on 2 July 1997,  for  a  term  of  4  years.   She  was  progressively
promoted to the grade of staff sergeant and currently serves in that  grade.
 The first time the report would  have  been  considered  in  the  promotion
process was cycle 06E6.

She filed an appeal under the provisions of AFI 36-2401, Correcting  Officer
and Enlisted Evaluation Reports and her appeal was denied on 24 May 2006.



The applicant’s EPR profile reflects the following:

      PERIOD ENDING    EVALUATION OF POTENTIAL

          30 Sep 06          5
         *30 Sep 05          2
          30 Sep 04          4
          30 Sep 03          5
           1 Mar 03          5
           1 Mar 02          4
           1 Mar 01          4
           1 Mar 00          3
           1 Mar 99          3


* Contested report

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPPEP recommends denial.  According to DPPPEP an evaluation report  is
considered to represent the rating chain’s best judgment at the time  it  is
rendered.  Once a report is accepted for file, only strong evidence  to  the
contrary warrants correction or removal from an  individual’s  record.   The
burden of proof is on the applicant.  The applicant  has  not  substantiated
the contested report was not rendered in good faith by all evaluators  based
on knowledge available at the time.

The complete evaluation is at Exhibit C.

AFPC/DPPPWB defers to the recommendation of DPPPEP.  DPPPWB states the  fact
that the EPR was a referral rendered the applicant ineligible for  promotion
consideration in accordance with AFI  36-2502,  Table  1.1,  Rule  22.   The
first time the contested report would have been considered in the  promotion
process was cycle 06E6 to technical sergeant.

The complete evaluation is at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant states she  contacted  the  Inspector  General’s  (IG)  office
several times and was told that unless she was discriminated against,  there
was no basis for an IG investigation.  The report was not presented  to  her
until 3 October 2005.  She requested an extension to seek legal counsel  and
her rebuttal was  submitted  on  14  October  2005,  which  was  within  the
timeframe allotted.  On 3 October 2005, an unsigned  copy  of  the  referral
EPR dated 30 September 2005 was presented to her.  At that  time,  the  date
in the raters block was changed from 30 September 2005 to 7  November  2005.
While applying for an extension in January 2006, she noticed the front  side
of the EPR was date stamped  13 December  2005  by  the  military  personnel
flight.  This was actually 6  days  after  the  70-calendar  day  limit  had
expired and reflects the report was  not  completed  in  a  timely  fashion.
When she received notification regarding the decline of her first appeal,  a
copy of the EPR was sent to her, dated 19  May  2006.   The  date  stamp  of
13 December 2005 was removed in an effort to negate the  6  days  which  the
EPR was late for completion and the date in the  raters  block  was  changed
from 7 November 2005 to 30 September 2005 to represent the  actual  closeout
date.

The applicant’s complete response, with attachments, is at Exhibit F.

_________________________________________________________________

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.  The applicant contends the  contested  EPR
is unjust, the EPR contained administrative errors  and  should  be  removed
from her  records.   After  reviewing  the  documentation  provided  by  the
applicant and  the  evidence  of  record,  the  Board  finds  no  persuasive
evidence showing that the applicant was rated unfairly, that the  report  is
in error, or that the evaluators were  biased  and  prejudiced  against  the
applicant.  In our opinion, the evaluators were  responsible  for  assessing
the applicant’s performance during the period in question and  are  presumed
to  have  rendered  the  evaluations  based  on  their  observation  of  the
applicant’s  performance.   Also,  referral  reports  are  required  to   be
completed and turned into the military personnel  flight  (MPF)  70-calendar
days after the close out of the report.  The EPR was required to  be  turned
into the MPF by 13 December 2005, and the EPR was  completed  by  that  date
and in a timely manner.  In regard to the applicant’s  contention  that  the
EPR contained administrative errors, the Board notes the  Evaluation  Report
Appeals  Branch  administratively  corrected  the  signature  date  of   the
contested EPR on 24 May 2006 and a  copy  of  the  EPR  was  mailed  to  her
reflecting  the  change.   Therefore,  we  agree  with  the   opinions   and
recommendations of the Air  Force  offices  of  primary  responsibility  and
adopt their rationale as the basis for our  conclusion  that  the  applicant
has not been the victim of  an  error  or  injustice.   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 an 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 AFBCMR Docket Number  BC-2006-
01716 in Executive Session on 26 October 2006 under the  provisions  of  AFI
36-2603:

                 Mr. Michael J. Novel, Panel Chair
                 Mr. Todd L. Schafer, Member
                 Ms. Mary C. Puckett, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 31 May 06, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPEP, dated 29 Jul 06, w/atchs.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPWB, dated 1 Aug 06.
   Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 18 Aug 06.
   Exhibit F.  Letter, Applicant, dated 12 Sep 06, w/atchs.





                                   MICHAEL J. NOVEL
                                   Panel Chair