RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  02-01904
		INDEX CODE:  

		COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

The “2” rating he received on one of his Enlisted Performance Reports be voided or upgraded (he does not specify the closeout date).

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

First of all he didn’t see this report and he doesn’t deserve to have a low score of a “2” due to the fact that he did nothing to warrant this type of score.  He did everything he was supposed to and got in no trouble.

Applicant's complete submission is attached at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 24 August 1992 for a period of 4 years.  He performed duties as a Law Enforcement Specialist and was progressively promoted to the grade of senior airman (E-4), effective and with a date of rank of 24 December 1994.  The following is a resume of his EPR ratings.

	PERIOD ENDING	PROMOTION RECOMMENDATION

	 23 Apr 1994 (A1C)	           5
 * 23 Apr 1995	           2
	 14 Feb 1996	           3
	 14 Feb 1977 (SrA)	           4

NOTE:  * - Contested report.

The applicant, who was then serving in the grade of senior airman (E-4), was administered an Article 15 on 9 January 1995 for striking an individual in the face with his fist.  His punishment consisted of a suspended reduction to the grade of Airman First Class (A1C) and seven days of extra duty.  The applicant acknowledged receipt by signing the AF Form 3070, Record of Nonjudicial Punishment Proceedings, on 17 January 1995.  On 31 March 1995, the suspended reduction was vacated due to a similar incident on 28 March 1995.  He acknowledged receipt by signing the AF Form 366, Record of Proceedings of Vacation of Suspended Nonjudicial Punishment, on 14 April 1995.  He also received a referral EPR, closeout date 23 April 1995, with an overall rating of “2.”  He acknowledged receipt of the referral on 4 May 1995.

The applicant was again promoted to the grade of senior airman (E-4) on 5 September 1996.  On 23 August 1997, he was honorably released from active duty in that grade and transferred to the Air Force Reserve based on his completion of required active service.  He had served 5 years on active duty.  A reenlistment eligibility (RE) code of 1J was assigned.  On 15 September 1999, the applicant was relieved from the Obligated Reserve Section and honorably discharged from the Air Force Reserve.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPPEP states that the applicant’s request is vague because he does not specify exactly which report he is contesting.  The only report that contains an overall “2” rating closed out 23 April 1995 and was referred to the applicant on 4 May 1995.  The report was referred to the applicant because his off-duty conduct was below an acceptable level.  Therefore, the applicant was aware of the low rating because he signed the referral memorandum.  The actions were not isolated incidents because the rater states in Section V, Line 13, “…his inability to control his behavior has been dealt with on numerous occasions without improvement.”  Evaluators are obliged to consider these incidents and periods of substandard performance when assessing the applicant’s performance and potential.

DPPEP indicated it is Air Force policy that an evaluation report is accurate as written when it becomes a matter of record.  The applicant has not provided any evidence to prove otherwise in this case.  Therefore, they recommend denial of applicant’s request.

A complete copy of the evaluation is attached at Exhibit C.

AFPC/DPPPWB states that due to the applicant’s new date of rank to A1C of 9 January 1995, he was promoted to Senior Airman (SrA) on 5 September 1996 (20 months time-in-grade).  He separated from active duty in that grade on 23 August 1997.  Should the Board decide to upgrade or remove the EPR, it would not affect the promotion process, as the applicant was not eligible for promotion consideration to staff sergeant (SSgt) prior to his separation.  They also recommend denial of applicant’s request.  A complete copy of the evaluation is attached at Exhibit D.

AFPC/DPPAE states that the Reenlistment Eligibility (RE) code of 1J, “Eligible to reenlist, but elects separation” is correct.  Applicant served 5 years of total active duty.

A complete copy of the evaluation is attached at Exhibit E.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

On 11 October 2002, copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to applicant for review and response within 30 days.  As of this date, no response has been received by this office.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

1.	The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by existing law or regulations.

2.	The application was not timely filed; however, it is in the interest of justice to excuse the failure to timely file.

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 agree with the opinion and recommendation of the Air Staff and adopt their rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice.  Therefore, in the absence of 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 on 19 November 2002, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

The following documentary evidence was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 6 Jun 02, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPEP, dated 13 Aug 02.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPWB, dated 15 Aug 02.
   Exhibit E.  Letter, AFPC/DPPAE, dated 3 Oct 02.
   Exhibit F.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 11 Oct 02.

                                   Panel Chair