RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-04551 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His Referral Enlisted Performance Report (EPR), rendered for the period of 21 Jun 12 through 20 Jun 13, be voided or removed from his military personnel records. APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: The contested EPR rating of “4” was unjust and was not handled to a standard that is enforced consistently and fairly throughout his unit as well as the wing he is assigned to. He was given the referral for becoming non-current in his physical fitness assessment (FA) at the time of the EPR close-out date, issued as a failure to meet Air Force standards. There was no malicious intent or deception on his part for missing his FA due date. Contributing factors were his significantly increased workload since Feb 13, being tasked for two temporary duty (TDY) assignments, and having to attend an accreditation course required for all DoD fire departments during this rating period. However, another member of his squadron was treated more leniently (only issued a Letter of Counseling) for failure to schedule and pass his FA on time. His squadron leadership failed when reviewing his Quality Force Indicators (QFI), saying he was good to go as late as 13 Jun 13 as his EPR went forward for closeout signatures with a “firewall 5” rating. His First Sergeant, as part of his responsibilities, failed to notify his rater of any discrepancies (i.e.: outdated FA) that needed to be corrected prior to the EPR closeout date. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant currently serves in the Regular Air Force in the grade of technical sergeant (E-6). On 15 Jul 13, the contested EPR was referred to the applicant for a “does not meet standards” rating in Block 3 (Fitness) and comments indicating that he inadvertently failed to remain current on his fitness test. In accordance with AFI 36-2406, Officer and Enlisted Evaluation Systems, chapter 10, paragraph 10.1.1: The Evaluation Reports Appeal Board (ERAB) was established to provide all Air Force personnel with an avenue of relief for correcting errors or injustices in evaluations at the lowest possible level. The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are described in the letters prepared by the Air Force offices of primary responsibility (OPR), which are attached at Exhibits C and D. AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSID recommends denial indicating there is no evidence of an error or an injustice. The applicant has not filed an appeal of his EPR through the ERAB under the provisions of AFI 36-2406. Additionally, his request for review is not in accordance with AFI 36-2401, Correcting Officer and Enlisted Evaluation Reports, as it lacks a substitute report signed by the evaluators who signed the original report. The evaluation was completed appropriately and within regulatory Air Force requirements. The main cause of the referral was not due to an inconsistency of punishment throughout the squadron, but simply the applicant’s failure to remain current with his FA. A complete copy of the AFPC/DPSID evaluation is at Exhibit C. AFPC/DPSIM recommends denial indicating there is no evidence of an error or injustice. Although this office recommends denial, they acknowledge that their office is not the office of primary responsibility for EPRs and defers recommendation of the removal of the EPR to the Enlisted Evaluation Branch. A complete copy of the AFPC/DPSIM evaluation is at Exhibit D. APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on 22 May 14 for review and comment within 30 days. As of this date, no response has been received by this office (Exhibit D). THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT: 1.  The applicant has not 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. In this respect, we note this Board is the highest administrative level of appeal within the Air Force. As such, an applicant must first exhaust all available avenues of administrative relief provided by existing law or regulations prior to seeking relief before this Board, as required by the governing Air Force Instruction. AFPC/DPSID has reviewed this application and indicated the ERAB is an available avenue of administrative relief the applicant has not first pursued. In view of this, we find this application is not ripe for adjudication at this level, as there exists a subordinate level of appeal that has not first been depleted. Therefore, in view of the above, 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. THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of material error or injustice; the application was denied without a personal appearance; and 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-2013-04551 in Executive Session on 2 Sep 14, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2013-04551 was considered: Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 10 Sep 13, w/atchs. Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPSID, dated 21 Jan 14. Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPSIM, dated 24 Mar 14. Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 22 May 14