RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2007-01531
		INDEX CODES:  111.02, 131.00

		COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His Enlisted Performance Reports (EPRs) closing 30 Apr 02, 30 Apr 03, and 30 Apr 04 be amended to reflect overall ratings of “5” or be declared void and removed from his records.

He be provided supplemental consideration for promotion to the grade of staff sergeant beginning with cycle 05E5.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The contested reports contained unfair ratings that were the result of discrimination, coercion, and a lack of feedback and supervision.

In support of his appeal, the applicant provided an expanded statement and supportive statements.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 1 Sep 00.  On 30 Sep 04, he was honorably released from active duty under the provisions of AFI 36-3208 (Completion of Required Active Service).  He was assigned an RE Code of 3I (Airman selected for reenlistment, but HQ AFPC removed the airman’s name from the CJR waiting list within five (5) months of DOS).  He was credited with four years and one month of active service.

On 23 Mar 06, the Board considered an application for correction of military records pertaining to the applicant in which he requested the following:

	a.  His reenlistment eligibility (RE) code be changed to “RE-1” to allow his reenlistment.

	b.  He be given a Selective Reenlistment Bonus (SRB).

	c.  He be allowed to cross-train into another Air Force Specialty Code (AFSC).

	d.  He receive back pay from the date of his discharge.

	e.  He be promoted to the rank he would have attained had he remained on active duty.

	f.  If reinstated to active duty, his personal belongings be shipped at government expense to his new assignment station.

	g.  He be allowed to pay back any leave he sold at the time of his separation.

The Board noted the applicant had a Career Job Reservation (CJR) that was erroneously removed because of a possible Medical Evaluation Board (MEB) which would have made him ineligible for reenlistment.  The MEB was never conducted and the applicant’s CJR was not reinstated, as it appears it should have been had the proper procedures been followed.  The Board also noted the applicant’s AFSC was authorized an SRB, and that if his CJR had not been erroneously removed, he would have been eligible to reenlist prior to his SRB being terminated.  As a result of the removal of his CJR, the applicant was subsequently released from active duty.  Accordingly, the Board recommended the applicant be reinstated to active duty, provided a constructive reenlistment with entitlement to an SRB, and provided supplemental consideration for promotion to the grade of staff.  In addition, the Board recommended he be allowed to pay back any leave he sold at the time of his separation.  In the Board’s view, this was proper and fitting relief.  On 21 Apr 06, The Director, Air Force Review Boards Agency, accepted the Board’s recommended corrective action.

Information extracted from the Personnel Data System (PDS) indicates the applicant is currently serving on active duty in the grade of senior airman, with a date of rank of 1 Sep 03.  His Total Active Federal Military Service Date (TAFMSD) is 1 Sep 00.

Applicant’s EPR profile since 2002 follows:

	PERIOD ENDING	EVALUATION

  *	30 Apr 02		3
  *	30 Apr 03		4
  *	30 Apr 04		4

* Contested Reports.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPPEP recommends denial indicating that 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 removal or a change in the ratings.  The burden of proof is on the applicant.  The applicant has not substantiated his case that the reports were inaccurate and unjust at the time they were rendered.  They noted the reports involved three different raters and three different additional raters, as well as the first sergeants and commanders performing the reviews, and that all of them concurred with the assessments of the applicant’s performance.

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

AFPC/DPPPWB recommends denial noting the applicant was supplementally considered for promotion to staff sergeant for cycles 05E5 and 06E5.  They indicated that should the Board remove all the EPRs or change the overall ratings to “5,” it would not increase the applicant’s scores sufficiently to make him a selectee for promotion for either cycle.  In order for the applicant to be considered supplementally, the Board would have to direct that the report closing 3 Apr 07 be used in the supplemental process.  However, it would not change the outcome of the applicant’s nonselection.

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

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Applicant reviewed the advisory opinion and furnished a response regarding the cutoff score for cycle 05E5, which he believes was cited incorrectly.  He also indicated he believes he has provided specific instances of the racial abuse he incurred.  According to the applicant, he contacted a number of individuals requesting they provide a statement on his behalf but they were afraid to do so for fear of reprisal.  He asks that the Board take into consideration the difficulty of obtaining evidence to support his allegations after six years.

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.  We took notice of the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of the case.  However, we did not find it sufficient to override the rationale expressed by the Air Force office of primary responsibility (OPR).  The applicant has not provided any statements from the individuals who had the responsibility for supervising him and evaluating his performance.   Based on the evidence presented, we are not persuaded that his evaluators were unable to render fair and honest assessments of his performance, or, that the contested EPRs was based on factors other than his performance.  In view of the foregoing, and in the absence of sufficient evidence to the contrary, we adopt the OPR’s rationale and conclude that no basis exists 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 AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2007-01531 in Executive Session on 17 Jan 08, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 16 May 07, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPEP, dated 6 Jun 07.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPWB, dated 13 Jun 07.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 13 Jul 07.
    Exhibit F.  Letter, applicant, dated 8 Sep 07, w/atchs.