RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:	BC-2009-02169 INDEX CODE:	111.00
XXXXXXX	COUNSEL:	NONE
HEARING DESIRED:	NO

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) ending 4 April 2000, be changed to reflect a rating of “5” rather than a “4”.

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
There is no justification to support the rating he received. The bullets clearly justify a “5” EPR rating. His distinguished graduate (DG) award illustrates he performed above and beyond that of his peers.

In support of his request, applicant provides a copy of the contested AF Form 910, Enlisted Performance Report (AB through TSGT).

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

STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 5 August 1998, and was progressively promoted to the grade of staff sergeant having assumed that grade effective and with a date of rank of 1 May 2003.

28	Jul	2008	5	
15	Sep	2007	5	
15	Sep	2006	5	
16	Oct	2005	5	
16	Oct	2004	4	
16	Oct	2003	5	
16	Oct	2002	4	

The following is a resume of the applicant’s recent EPR profile: PERIOD ENDING	OVERALL EVALUATION

EPR PROFILE CONTINUED:

4 Apr 2002	5
4 Apr 2001	5
4 Apr 2000	4 (Contested Report)
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
AFPC/DPSIDEP recommends denial. DPSIDEP states the applicant provides no evidence to support that the contested report was inaccurate or unjust. In fact, the contested report was the applicant's very first EPR and the comments not only support the "4" rating, they could support a "3" rating as well. Furthermore, he does not get to choose what comments or rating he will receive; that is solely the responsibility of the rating chain. He places emphasis on earning several DG awards during his 11 year career as the basis for his request but does not mention he had an Article 15 during this same period. Nonetheless, the DG award alone does not illustrate that he performed above and beyond that of his peers and is deserving of immediate promotion. While the DG award is a major accomplishment, the evaluators are charged with  evaluating airmen using the whole person concept, not just a single award. The evidence shows the evaluators did just that.
The complete DPSIDEP evaluation is at Exhibit B.
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 9 October 2009 for review and comment within 30 days. As of this date, this office has received no response (Exhibit C).

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 opinion and recommendation of the Air Force office of primary responsibility
1.	
and adopt its 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 that the contested report is not a true and accurate assessment of his behavior and demonstrated potential during the specified time period or that the ratings he received were in error or contrary to the provisions of the governing instruction. Therefore, in the absence of persuasive evidence to the contrary, we find no 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 an 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-2009-02169 in Executive Session on 24 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 8 June 2009, w/atch.
Exhibit B.	Letter, AFPC/DPSIDEP, dated 25 September 2009. Exhibit C.	Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 9 October 2009.