RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2007-02792
		INDEX CODE:  111.02

		COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His Referral Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) rendered for the period 1 Mar 06 through 28 Feb 07 be declared void and removed from his records.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

Too much emphasis was placed on an isolated incident.

There was a lack of observation and supervision.

He only worked in the squadron for three and a half months.

There was no evidence to support the referral report and the overall rating of “3.”

The EPR did not accurately reflect his accomplishments during the reporting period. 

He received the referral report as a result of a Letter of Reprimand (LOR).

In support of his appeal, the applicant provided copies of the contested report, electronic mail (e-mail), a Physical Profile Serial Report, supportive statements, the LOR, and an AF IMT 1058, Unfavorable Information File (UIF) Action.

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 May 06.  His Total Active Federal Military Service Date (TAFMSD) is 13 Nov 01.

Applicant’s EPR profile follows:

	PERIOD ENDING	EVALUATION

	13 Jul 03		5
	28 Feb 05		5
	28 Feb 06		4
  *	28 Feb 07		3 (Referral)

* Contested Report.

On 11 Dec 06, the applicant was given an LOR for being negligent in the performance of his duties as a noncommissioned officer (NCO).  Specifically, on 16 Oct 06, he was given a profile that stated he was not world-wide deployable.  He showed this profile to the director of operations (DO) and the group unit deployment manager (UDM).  Unfortunately, the profile was not legal because all of the required signatures were not on it.  Three days later, he picked up his legitimate profile stating he was world-wide deployable but did not go out of his way to reveal it.  He placed it on the squadron UDM’s desk but took no other action.  That same day, someone else was picked to take his spot on a deployment.  He became aware of that and still failed to point out he was deployable.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPSIDEP recommends denial noting the applicant filed an appeal through the Evaluation Reports Appeals Board (ERAB).  However, the ERAB found no procedural errors in the contested report and denied the appeal.  AFPC/DPSIDEP indicates they have reviewed the applicant’s request for removal of the contested EPR and found no evidence the report was in error or unjust.

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

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Applicant again asserts the reasons he believes the contested EPR is unjust, and points out the inconsistency he believes existed between the e-mail from his commander and the LOR he received.  He respectfully asks that the Board remove the report from his records.

Applicant’s complete response is at Exhibit E.

_________________________________________________________________

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 warranting any corrective action.  The evidence of record indicates the applicant was given an LOR for being negligent in the performance of his duties as an NCO, which was the basis for the referral EPR.  We are not persuaded by the evidence presented that the information used as the reason for the LOR was erroneous, there was an abuse of discretionary authority, or the contested report was an inaccurate depiction of the applicant’s performance at the time it was rendered.  In view of the above, and in the absence of sufficient 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 AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2007-02792 in Executive Session on 12 Feb 08, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 24 Aug 07, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Available Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPSIDEP, dated 11 Dec 07.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 21 Dec 07.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, applicant, dated 18 Jan 08.