RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2007-02691
            INDEX CODE:  111.02

            COUNSEL:  JOSEPH W. KASTL

            HEARING DESIRED:  YES


_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

Her Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) rendered for the  period  28 Jun
05 through 22 May 06 be declared void and removed from her records.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The contested report unfairly magnifies  one  misstep  and  negatively
misrepresents a highly competitive and outstanding career.

In support of her appeal, the applicant provides  a  counsel’s  brief,
documentation  pertaining  to   a   criminal   complaint,   supportive
statements, extracts from her military personnel records, photographs,
and other documents associated with the matter under review.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Information extracted from the Personnel Data System  (PDS)  indicates
the applicant is currently serving on active  duty  in  the  grade  of
staff sergeant, with a date of rank  (DOR)  of  1 Oct 02.   Her  Total
Active Federal Military Service Date (TAFMSD) is 12 Dec 96.

Applicant's EPR profile follows:

     PERIOD ENDING                            EVALUATION

      11 Aug 98        4
      11 Aug 99        4
      11 Aug 00        5
      22 Sep 01        4
      22 Sep 02        5
      22 Sep 03        5
      25 Jun 04        5
      27 Jun 05        5
  *   22 May 06        4 (Referral)
      22 May 07        5

* Contested report.

The remaining  relevant  facts  pertaining  to  this  application  are
contained in the letter prepared by the appropriate office of the  Air
Force.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPSIDEP recommends denial indicating the evidence  provided  does
not substantiate the accuracy of what happened, when it  happened  and
what punishment she received for  which  incident.   They  could  only
speculate based on the contested report and by what the applicant  has
stated in her application.  It  seems  that  the  applicant  had  been
accused of spousal abuse during an altercation  with  her  spouse  and
received an Article 15. Additionally, there was an altercation with an
employee at a car wash after the employee allegedly stole her  wedding
ring, for which she received a  Letter  of  Reprimand  (LOR).   Later,
separation proceedings were brought up against her and  the  discharge
board found that she was the victim  and  not  the  assailant  in  the
spousal abuse charge and recommended  retention.   However,  they  did
find that she brought discredit upon the Air Force  in  the  car  wash
incident and she voluntarily entered an Anger Management  class  which
she successfully completed.  Although the applicant does not  go  into
much detail as to how this  affected  the  outcome  of  the  contested
report, she provided a statement from her doctor  substantiating  that
she suffered from  Post-Traumatic  Stress  Disorder  (PTSD)  from  the
spousal abuse and being at ground zero on 11 Sep 01 (9/11),  that  she
was progressing satisfactorily, and that it does not affect  her  duty
performance.  They concede the applicant was the victim  and  not  the
perpetrator in the domestic dispute; she suffered from PTSD;  and  she
has an otherwise outstanding record.  However, the incidents did  take
place, and she received an Article 15 and an LOR.   Although  she  may
feel the evaluators have over stressed  an  isolated  incident,  or  a
short period of substandard performance or conduct, the evaluators are
obliged to  consider  such  incidents,  their  significance,  and  the
frequency with  which  they  occurred  in  assessing  performance  and
potential.  Only the evaluators know how much an  incident  influenced
the report.  Therefore, the opinions of individuals outside the rating
chain are not relevant.  Until the Article 15 and LOR are  set  aside,
the report remains accurate and the rater's comments on the misconduct
are appropriate.

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

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to  applicant  on  18
Apr 08 for review and response within 30 days.  As of  this  date,  no
response has been received by this office (Exhibit D).

_________________________________________________________________

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  took  notice  of   the
applicant's complete submission in judging the  merits  of  the  case.
However, we did not find it sufficiently persuasive  to  override  the
rationale expressed by the Air Force office of primary  responsibility
(OPR).  We also note the applicant provided no rating  chain  support.
In our view, these individuals would have been in the best position to
evaluate her performance, and we  find  no  evidence  the  applicant’s
evaluators were unable to render a fair and honest evaluation  of  her
performance.  In  view  of  the  foregoing,  and  in  the  absence  of
sufficient  evidence  the  contested  report  was  not   an   accurate
assessment of her performance when originally prepared, we  adopt  the
OPR’s rationale  and  conclude  that  no  basis  exists  to  recommend
granting the relief sought in this application

4.  The applicant's case is adequately documented and it has not  been
shown  that  a  personal  appearance  with  or  without  counsel  will
materially  add  to  our  understanding  of   the   issues   involved.
Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorably considered.

_________________________________________________________________

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 AFBCMR Docket Number BC-
2007-02691 in Executive Session on 21 May 08, under the provisions  of
AFI 36-2603:

      Mr. B. J. White-Olson, Panel Chair
      Mr. Elwood C. Lewis III, Member
      Mr. James A. Wolffe, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 13 Aug 07, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPSIDEP, dated 7 Mar 08.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 18 Apr 08.




                                   B. J. WHITE-OLSON
                                   Panel Chair