RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:                 DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2006-03011
                       INDEX CODE:  111.02
      XXXXXXX                COUNSEL:  NONE

                       HEARING DESIRED:  NO

MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 5 Apr 08

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

The Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) for the period closing 3 Jun  04
and having an overall rating of 4 be replaced  with  a  reaccomplished
report provided for the same period with an overall rating of 5.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

During the rating period, he was on temporary duty (TDY) for 120  days
[to a retinal specialist in Washington DC for a  detached  retina  and
other eye-related appointments, according to his May 05 appeal to  the
Evaluation Reports Appeal Board (ERAB) – Exhibit B]  and  returned  to
receive an unjust rating.  The markings were unjust as he  exemplifies
the standard of conduct on/off duty, is  an  exceptional  leader,  and
communicates clearly and concisely.

The rater provides a  statement  recommending  the  contested  EPR  be
deleted as it  was  unjust  and  did  not  fit  the  applicant’s  true
performance.  Also submitted is a  reaccomplished  EPR  for  the  same
period, which is signed by the rater and additional rater but  not  by
the commander.

A complete copy of the applicant’s submission,  with  attachments,  is
provided at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant is currently serving in the Regular  Air  Force  in  the
grade of technical sergeant (TSgt) with a date of rank (DOR) of 17 May
02.   During  the  period  in  question,   the   applicant   was   the
Noncommissioned Officer in Charge (NCOIC),  Fuels  Support,  with  the
78th Logistics Readiness Squadron at Robins AFB, GA.

The contested report was considered in promotion cycles 05E7 and 06E7.
 The applicant’s total score for cycle  05E7  was  306.78;  the  score
required for selection in his Air  Force  Specialty  Code  (AFSC)  was
329.16.  His total score for cycle 06E7 was 322.54; the  cutoff  score
for that cycle was 337.25.

The applicant filed an appeal under the  provisions  of  AFI  36-2401,
Correcting Officer and Enlisted  Evaluation  Reports,  on  18 May  05,
contending the contested EPR should be deleted because the  number  of
days of supervision was incorrect and he could  not  do  his  complete
duties until his eye surgery was complete.  On  16 Sep  05,  the  ERAB
denied the applicant’s request.

On 8 Nov 05, the applicant filed a second appeal, requesting the 3 Jun
04 report be deleted because of an  unjust  rating  resulting  from  a
“personnel [sic] conflict with the  rater.”   The  ERAB  returned  the
appeal  without   action,   suggesting   the   applicant   provide   a
reaccomplished EPR.

On 16 Aug 06, the applicant submitted an application  to  replace  the
contested report with the reaccomplished EPR  for  the  period  ending
3 Jun 04.  However, on 6 Sep 06, the ERAB denied the requested relief.

An EPR profile since 1999 follows:

      CLOSING DATE     OVERALL RATING

        2 Aug 99       5
        2 Aug 00       5
        2 Aug 01       5
        3 Jun 02       5
        3 Jun 03       5
      * 3 Jun 04 4 (Same additional rater as 3 Jun 03)
        3 Jun 05 5 (Same rater & additional rater as 3 Jun 03)
        3 Jun 06       5

*Contested Report

In Section III, the contested EPR is marked one block  down  from  the
highest level in factors relating to performance of  assigned  duties,
knowledge of assigned duties, conduct on/off duty, and leadership; and
two blocks down in communication.   In  the  reaccomplished  EPR,  the
factors relating to performance of  assigned  duties,  conduct  on/off
duty, and communication have been moved one block up, and the  overall
rating has been changed from a 4 to a 5.  The text is unchanged.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

HQ AFPC/DPPPEP recommends denial.  The statement from the  rater  only
states that the report was unjust and not fitting to  the  applicant’s
true performance without providing an explanation or justification  as
to why the report was unjust or inaccurate.  There are  no  statements
from the additional rater or the commander, and the commander did  not
sign the reaccomplished EPR.  The ERAB will not  consider  or  approve
requests to change an evaluator’s ratings or comments if the evaluator
does not support the change.  When an evaluator supports changing  the
ratings, all subsequent evaluators, including the commander, must also
agree to the changes.  The simple willingness  by  the  evaluators  to
upgrade, rewrite or void a report is not a valid basis for  doing  so.
The applicant has failed to provide clear evidence the EPR was  unjust
or inaccurate as written when it became a matter of record and support
from all evaluators.

A complete copy of the HQ AFPC/DPPPEP evaluation is at Exhibit C.

HQ AFPC/DPPPWB  defers  to  HQ  AFPC/DPPPEP  regarding  replacing  the
contested EPR.  If  the  EPR  is  replaced,  the  applicant  would  be
entitled to supplemental promotion consideration beginning with  cycle
05E7.  However, it would serve no useful  purpose  because  his  score
would only be raised 6.75 points for cycle 05E7 and  6.08  points  for
06E7, both insufficient for selection.

A complete copy of the HQ AFPC/DPPPWB evaluation is at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Complete copies of the Air Force evaluations  were  forwarded  to  the
applicant on 17 Nov 06 for review and comment within 30 days  (Exhibit
D).  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.    Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate
the existence of error or injustice to warrant  replacing  or  voiding
the 3 Jun 04 EPR.  In this respect, the only rating  chain  supporting
statement is from the rater.  However, the rater does not explain  how
the contested EPR is “unjust” and “not fitting  to  [the  applicant’s]
true performance,” nor does she specify what she knows  now  that  she
did not know then that warrants upgrading the report.   Further,  only
the rater and additional rater signed the reaccomplished report; there
is no commander’s signature. In the applicant’s first ERAB appeal,  he
contended the EPR should be deleted because  of  alleged  insufficient
days of supervision; in the second, he contended the report was unjust
because of a conflict with the rater.  The applicant’s submission  has
not established to our  satisfaction  that  the  contested  report  as
rendered is an inaccurate or prejudiced assessment of his  performance
during the pertinent period.  Therefore, in  view  of  the  above  and
absent evidence to the  contrary,  we  find  no  compelling  basis  to
recommend granting the relief sought in this application.

_________________________________________________________________

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 10 January 2007 under the provisions of  AFI  36-
2603:

                 Mr. James W. Russell III, Panel Chair
                 Ms. Barbara R. Murray, Member
                 Mr. Reginald P. Howard, Member

The following documentary evidence relating to AFBCMR Docket Number BC-
2006-03011 was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 11 Sep 06, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPPEP, dated 1 Nov 06.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPPWB, dated 2 Nov 06.
   Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 17 Nov 06.





                                   JAMES W. RUSSELL III
                                   Panel Chair