RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:	BC-2008-00936 INDEX CODE:	111.02
XXXXXXX	NONE
HEARING DESIRED:	NO

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) ending 10 January 1992, be replaced with the EPR he provides.

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
His commander incorrectly directed a low rating on his EPR. His commander later learned the applicant was not the guilty party and now recommends the EPR be changed to reflect a higher rating. Replacing the EPR will remove a stain from his otherwise clean record and eliminate the low numbers wrongfully used to consider him for promotion.

In support of his request, applicant provides several statements from his rating chain and a copy of a replacement AF Form 910, Enlisted Performance Report (AB through TSGT).

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

STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force (RegAF) on
22 July 1981 and was progressively promoted to the grade of technical sergeant (TSgt) having assumed that grade effective and with a date of rank of 1 October 1998.

He was considered for promotion to TSgt seven times before becoming a select during cycle 98E6.

Effective 1 August 2001, he retired in the grade of TSgt.
The following is a resume of the applicant’s recent EPR profile: PERIOD ENDING	OVERALL EVALUATION
4 Sep 1998	5
15 Jul 1997	5
15 Jul 1996	5

EPR PROFILE CONTINUED:
10 Jan 1996	

5	
10 Jan 1995	5	
10 Jan 1994	4	
10 Jan 1993	5	
10 Jan 1992	2 (Contested Report – missing)	
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
AFPC/DPSIDEP recommends approval. DPSIDEP states in 2007 the applicant requested his EPR rendered for the period 11 January 1991 through 10 January 1992 reflecting the overall “2" rating be replaced with the EPR with the overall "5" rating he provided. However, the report was missing and an AF Form 77, Letter of Evaluation was placed in his record reflecting the "2" rating as indicated in the Military Personnel Data System (MilPDS). In Oct 2008 DPSIDEP advised the applicant to withdraw his request until he could obtain the reaccomplished report and then resubmit.  He is now resubmitting, requesting the AF Form
77 be replaced with the reaccomplished report. He provides statements from his evaluators supporting his request. Additionally, his commander states he directed the low rating at the time for an issue he attributed to the applicant but it came to light later that the applicant was not the guilty party and the attribution needs to be corrected.

The complete DPSIDEP evaluation is at Exhibit B.
AFPC/DPSOE defers to the recommendation of DPSIDEP regarding his request to have his EPR/AF Form 77 replaced. DPSIDEP states the contested report was used in the promotion process for cycles 94A6 through 97E6. Should the Board void the report as requested, the applicant would be entitled to supplemental consideration beginning with cycle 94A6. However, it would serve no useful purpose to supplementally consider the applicant as his total score would not increase sufficiently to meet the promotion cutoff score required for any of these cycles.

The complete DPSOE evaluation is at Exhibit C.

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on 18 September 2009 for review and comment within 30 days. As of this date, this office has received no response (Exhibit D).

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.	Sufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of an error or injustice warranting corrective action. After careful consideration of the applicant’s complete submission, including the supporting statements provided by his rating chain, it appears that he has been the victim of an error and injustice as evidenced by their statements. In view of his evaluators’ statements, we believe the contested Letter of Evaluation does not provide an accurate assessment of the applicant’s performance during the period in question and should be removed from his records and substituted with the reaccomplished report. Therefore, we agree with AFPC/DPSIDEP’s recommendation to substitute the AF Form 77 with the reaccomplished report he provided. Additionally, although the applicant has not requested supplemental promotion consideration, we note that DPSOS has calculated his promotion scores for the previous promotion cycles and determined his total scores will not increase sufficiently to meet the promotion cutoff scores, therefore, no basis exist upon which to direct supplemental promotion consideration. Accordingly, we recommend that his records be corrected to the extent indicated below.

RECOMMENDATION OF THE BOARD:
The	pertinent	military	records	of	the	Department	of	the	Air Force relating to APPLICANT, be corrected to show that:

a.	AF Form 77, Letter of Evaluation, rendered for the period 11 January 1991 through 10 January 1992 be, and hereby is, declared void and removed from his records.

b.	The attached AF Form 910, Enlisted Performance Report (AB thru TSgt), rendered for the period 11 January 1991 through
10 January 1992, be filed in his records.

The following members of the Board considered BC-2008-00936 in Executive Session on 3 November 2009 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

Panel Chair 
Member
Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A.	DD Form 149, dated 19 February 2007, w/atchs. Exhibit B.	Letter, AFPC/DPSIDEP, dated 24 August 2009.
Exhibit C.	Letter, AFPC/DPSOE, dated 15 September 2009. Exhibit D.	Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 18 September 2009.