RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2007-03262
		INDEX CODE:  111.02
		COUNSEL:  NONE
		HEARING DESIRED:  NO

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

1.  His Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) rendered for the period 9 October 2004 through 8 October 2005, be removed from his records.

2.  His test score for promotion cycle 07E7 be recalculated.

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The EPR in question is not an accurate portrayal of his performance and does not match or add up to the rating he received, nor is it valid because he was not given a chance to respond to the EPR.  The last line in his rater’s comments state he has the potential to be an effective noncommissioned officer (NCO) leader with the proper supervision.  This EPR is disproportionate to his performance and accomplishments.  Before his permanent change of assignment (PCA) he was not given any indication he was getting a “2” EPR and would be ineligible to test for promotion.  He was informed of the report during his PCA by his new orderly room.  When he tried to sign for a test date he learned he was ineligible to test because he received a referral EPR.  He was not giving the opportunity to respond to this report and his records showed no memorandum of referral paperwork.  His former commander stated he did a great job; however, he was forced to move him because the other shop was undermanned and needed help.  He believes this report followed him to his new squadron and stereotyped him with the higher ranks.  He feels this report is wrong and unjust.  

In support of his request, the applicant provided a personal statement and documentation associated with his appeal to the Evaluation Reports Appeal Board (ERAB).

His complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.

________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant contracted his initial enlistment in the Regular Air Force on 10 December 1986.  He has been progressively promoted to the grade of technical sergeant, having assumed that grade effective and with a date of rank of 1 October 2002.  

The following is a resume of his recent EPR profile:

	PERIOD ENDING	PROMOTION RECOMMENDATION

		31 December 2002		5
		31 December 2003		5
		 8 October 2004		5
		 8 October 2005		2(Contested Report)
		 8 October 2006		4

________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPSIDEP recommends denial.  DPSIDEP states in accordance with (IAW) AFI 36-2406, Officer and Enlisted Evaluation Systems, paragraph 3.9.1., an evaluator will refer a report when any block in the far left in section III is marked; or an overall rating of “1” in section IV; or comments that are derogatory in nature, that imply or refer to behavior incompatible with or not meeting minimal acceptable standards of personal or professional conduct, character, judgment or integrity and/or refer to disciplinary action.  DPSIDEP reviewed the contested report and determined that although the contested statement borders making the report a referral, it does not state the applicant is not meeting minimum standards, which is the key in determining whether or not a statement would make a report a referral.  Upon initial review, DPSIDEP did have concerns regarding the overall promotion recommendation rating and that the overall comments were fairly positive and really did not justify the overall rating.  However, upon further research and although not mentioned in the report DPSIDEP found the applicant had actually received an Article 15 for dereliction in the performance of his duties during the contested reporting period.  IAW AFI 36-2406, table 3.2, note 8c, a ratee may be performing satisfactorily when compared to others in the same Air Force Specialty Code (AFSC); however, when considering all pertinent factors, the ratee might have less potential for promotion or increased responsibility.  The ratings in section IV and comments should reflect this lesser potential.  This office believes the evaluators did just that; that the evaluators wanted to show there had been some issues during the reporting period without having it following him throughout the rest of his career by mentioning the Article 15.  DPSIDEP will not void a report that can be corrected.  Although, the report is acceptable as is, to eliminate any doubt, DPSIDEP would only recommend and upon approval, direct the report be reaccomplished to include a statement that he received an Article 15 for dereliction of duty, and then refer the report to the applicant as required in IAW AFI36-2406, paragraph 3.9.  Since the report is acceptable as is, it will be in the applicant's favor to keep it as is.  

The complete DPSIDEP evaluation is at Exhibit C.

AFPC/DPSOE recommends denial.  DPSOE states the fact that the contested report has an overall rating of “2” rendered the applicant ineligible for promotion consideration during cycle 06E7 to master sergeant IAW with AFI 36-2502, table 1.1., Rule 22. The first time the report was considered in the promotion process was cycle 07E7 to master sergeant.  The applicant's total score was 322.20 and the score required for selection in his AFSC was 331.53 (-9.33 points).  He received an EPR score of 110.02.  Should the Board void this report as requested providing he is otherwise eligible; the applicant will become entitled to supplemental promotion consideration for the cycle.  He would become a select as his EPR score would increase to 127.05 (+17.03).  

The complete DPSOE evaluation is at Exhibit D.

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on 18 January 2008 for review and comment within 30 days.  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 an error or injustice.  We took careful notice of the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of the case; however, we agree with the opinions and recommendation of the Air Force offices of primary responsibility and adopt their rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant has failed to sustain his burden of proof of the existence of either an error or injustice in this case.  We are not persuaded by the evidence provided that the contested report is erroneous or unjust or that the report was prepared contrary to the provisions of the governing instruction.  Therefore, in the absence of persuasive evidence to the contrary, we find no compelling basis to recommend granting the relief sought in this application.

________________________________________________________________

RECOMMENDATION OF THE BOARD:

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 BC-2007-03262 in Executive Session on 27 February 2008, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

The following documentary evidence was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 24 September 2007, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Letter, AFPC/DPSIDEP, dated 13 November 2007.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPSOE, dated 27 November 2007.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 18 January 2008.