RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2010-03556 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 1. His enlisted performance report (EPR) rendered for the period 16 May 08 through 15 May 09 be removed from his records. 2. He be given supplemental promotion consideration to the grade of technical sergeant for the 2010E6 promotion cycle. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: The ratings he received in Block III, Performance Assessment, Section 1, Primary/Additional Duties, and Section 5, Teamwork/Followership, are not accurate assessments of his performance and is unfair because they lack significant achievements and accomplishments during his evaluation period. The number of days of supervision is incorrect. He was not given an initial feedback session despite multiple requests. However, he was given a five minute midterm feedback session. He received a Letter of Reprimand based on two other airmen shipping cargo (priority one) to the wrong location. In support of his request, the applicant provides copies of a DA Form 638, Recommendation for Award; an AF Form 77, Letter of Evaluation; an Army Achievement Medal certificate, personal statements, an e-mail, his application to the Enlisted Reports Appeals Board (ERAB), and the contested report. The applicant's complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. _________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant is presently serving in the Regular Air Force in the grade of staff sergeant, with a date of rank and effective date of 1 Dec 05. A resume of the applicant’s EPRs follows: CLOSE-OUT DATE OVERALL RATING 15 Aug 05 5 15 Aug 06 5 20 Jul 07 5 15 May 08 5 *15 May 09 4 26 Feb 10 5 *Contested Report _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: HQ AFPC/DPSID recommends denial. DPSID states the ERAB determined there was insufficient evidence to void the contested report; however, they were able to verify and administratively correct the number of days of supervision. DPSIP states an evaluation report is considered to represent the rating chain’s best judgment at the time it is rendered. The applicant has not substantiated the contested report was not rendered in good faith by all evaluators based on knowledge available at the time. The complete DPSID evaluation is at Exhibit C. HQ AFPC/DPSOE recommends denial and defers to the recommendation of DPSID. 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 14 Jan 11 for review and comment within 30 days (Exhibit E). As of this date, this office has not received a 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 error or injustice. We took 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 the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice. Therefore, in the absence of 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 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 Docket Number BC-2010-03556 in Executive Session on 12 April 2011, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: The following documentary evidence was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 22 Sep 10, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Letter, HQ AFPC/DPSID, dated 9 Nov 10. Exhibit D. Letter, HQ AFPC/DPSOE, dated 30 Nov 10. Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 14 Jan 11.