RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2008-02016
		INDEX CODE:  111.01
		COUNSEL:  XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
		HEARING DESIRED:  YES

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

1.  The Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) rendered for the period 20 May 2006 to 12 February 2007 be removed from his records.  

2.  He be considered for supplemental promotion to the grade of master sergeant by the 07E7 promotion board.

_______________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

After filing an Inspector General (IG) complaint against members in his squadron, he began experiencing a series of mistreatments resulting in a referral report.

In support of his request, applicant provided a chronological record of events, copies of his LOR and EPR.

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

_______________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Information extracted from the Personnel Data System (PDS) reflects the applicant is currently serving on active duty in the grade of technical sergeant (E-6), having assumed that grade effective and with a date of rank of 1 June 2005. 

The applicant filed a similar request through the ERAB and his request was denied on 24 January 2008 due to a lack of evidence supporting his contentions.

The following is a resume of the applicant’s recent EPR profile:

	   PERIOD ENDING		   OVERALL EVALUATION 

16 July 2007                     5
12 February 2007                 4 (Contested Report)
19 May 2006                      5
31 May 2005                      5

EPR PROFILE CONTINUED:

31 May 2004                      5
4 November 2003                  5

_______________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPSIDEP recommends denial of his request to remove the contested EPR.  DPSIDEP states contested reports are reviewed to ensure there are no administrative or procedural errors or injustices and that the documented information is accurate based on its content.  The ERAB does not determine the validity of any administrative actions or alleged injustice; only whether the administrative action/injustice took place and the reason purported in the regulation is in fact accurate based on the evidence provided.  Unfortunately, the applicant received a LOR for violating the Annotated Code of Maryland which prohibits unauthorized recording without permission of all parties.  Since the applicant received the LOR for the reason purported in the EPR the content of the report is accurate and not unjust.  In fact, the LOR alone more than justifies the content and ratings of the contested report. The applicant contends that the referral EPR was the last of a series of reprisal actions for filing an IG complaint against members of his squadron and flight leadership.  Unfortunately the evidence shows he submitted a complaint, however, it does not substantiate his claim despite the ERAB’s numerous attempts to obtain the final outcome. 

The complete DPSIDEP evaluation is at Exhibit B.

AFPC/DPSOE defers to the recommendation of DSIDEP and addresses the supplemental promotion consideration portion of this request.  DPSOE states the first time the contested report would normally have been considered in the promotion process to master sergeant was cycle 07E7.  The fact that the EPR was a referral report rendered him ineligible for consideration for promotion in accordance with AFI-36-2502, Airman Promotion Program.  He was considered and selected for promotion to master sergeant during cycle 08E7. 

The complete DPSOE evaluation is at Exhibit C.

_______________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant’s counsel responded stating the issues raised on his DD Form 149 reflect the facts needed for equitable review.

The complete response is attached 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 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 recommendations of the Air Force offices of primary responsibility and adopt their rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice.  We do not find his assertions, in and by themselves, sufficiently persuasive in this matter.  Additionally, we are not persuaded by the evidence provided that the contested report is not a true and accurate assessment of his performance and demonstrated potential during the specified time period or that the comments contained in the report were in error or contrary to the provisions of the governing instruction.  Since his EPR will remain, favorable consideration of his request for supplemental promotion consideration to the grade of master sergeant is not warranted.  In the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no compelling basis to recommend granting the relief sought in this application.

4.  The applicant's case is adequately documented and it has not been shown that a personal appearance with or without counsel will materially add to our understanding of the issues involved. Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorably considered.

_______________________________________________________________

RECOMMENDATION OF THE BOARD:

The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of 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-2008-02016 in Executive Session on 24 September 2008 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

			Panel Chair
			Member
Member
The following documentary evidence pertaining AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2008-02016 was considered:

 Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 23 April 2008, w/atchs.
 Exhibit B.  Letter, AFPC/DPSIDEP, dated 15 July 2008.
 Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPSOE, dated 21 July 2008.
 Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 1 August 2008.
 Exhibit E.  Letter, Applicant’s Counsel, dated 2 September 2008.

                                   
                                   Panel Chair