RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF: 		        DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-05389

 					COUNSEL:  NONE

				        HEARING DESIRED:  YES 


APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

1.  His referral Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) for the 
period ending 18 Nov 10 with an overall rating of “2” be changed 
to a “3” or be removed from his record.  

2.  He receives supplemental promotion consideration to the 
grade of Staff Sergeant (SSgt, E-5) for Cycle 2013.


APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He was moved from customer service to force management with over 
120 days of supervision and a Change of Reporting Official (CRO) 
EPR was not accomplished.

The Article 15 he received during the reporting period should 
have been included on the CRO EPR and not on the EPR from force 
management.   

The EPR was unjustly harsh and caused him to miss promotion to 
the grade of SSgt by 3 points.

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


STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 18 Mar 08, the applicant entered the regular Air Force.   

According to an AF Form 910, Enlisted Performance Report (AB 
thru TSgt), for the period ending 18 Nov 10, he received a 
referral EPR with an overall rating of “2.”  


AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPSID recommends denial of the applicant’s request to 
remove the contested EPR based on a lack of corroborating 
evidence.  Air Force policy is that an evaluation report is 
accurate as written when it becomes a matter of record and it is 
considered to represent the rating chain’s best judgment at the 
time it is rendered.  The applicant has not provided compelling 
evidence to show that the report was unjust or inaccurate as 
written.  Statements from all the evaluators during the 
contested period are conspicuously absent.  In order to 
effectively and successfully challenge the validity of an 
evaluation report, it is necessary to hear from all members of 
the rating chain.  He has failed to provide the necessary 
information/support from any rating official on the contested 
EPR.  Furthermore, the applicant did not file an appeal through 
the Evaluation Reports Appeals Board (ERAB) under the provisions 
of AFI 36-2401, Correcting Officer and Enlisted Evaluation 
Reports. 

DPSID also recommends denial of the applicant’s request to 
upgrade the contested report to a “3.”  The applicant has made a 
prohibited request by failing to provide a re-accomplished EPR, 
along with signed memorandums of support/justification from the 
original evaluators at the time.  Per AFI 36-2401, appeals 
requesting to re-accomplish an evaluation will not be considered 
without the applicant furnishing a new evaluation. 

The complete DPSID evaluation is at Exhibit B.  

AFPC/DPSOE recommends denial of the applicant’s request for 
supplemental promotion consideration to the grade of SSgt for 
Cycle 13E5 based on the recommendation of DPSID that the EPR 
should not be upgraded or removed.  

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 4 Nov 14 for review and comment within 30 days 
(Exhibit D).  As of this date, no response has been received by 
this office.


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.  The Air Force offices of primary responsibility 
have reviewed this application and indicated there are available 
avenues 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 are subordinate levels 
of appeal that have not first been depleted.  Therefore, in view 
of the above, we find no 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 that he has not exhausted all 
available avenues of administrative relief prior to submitting 
his application to the BCMR; and the application will only be 
reconsidered upon exhausting all subordinate avenues of 
administrative relief.  


The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket 
Number BC-2013-05389 in Executive Session on 9 Dec 14 under the 
provisions of AFI 36-2603:

	 , Panel Chair
	 , Member
	 , Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

	Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 15 Nov 13, w/atchs.
	Exhibit B.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPSID, dated 29 Sep 14.
	Exhibit C.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPSOE, dated 14 Oct 14.
        Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 4 Nov 14.