RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-03088 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her Enlisted Performance Report (EPR), rendered for the period of 5 Jul 10 through 4 Jul 11 with an overall rating of “4,” be removed from her military personnel records. APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: The contested EPR rating of “4” was unjust. Her supervisor had a personal bias towards her and created a hostile work environment. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. STATEMENT OF FACTS: During the matter of concern, the applicant was serving in the Regular Air Force in the grade of staff sergeant (E-5). The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the memorandum prepared by the Air Force office of primary responsibility (OPR), which is attached at Exhibit C. AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSIDE recommends denial indicating there is no evidence of an error or an injustice. The applicant has not filed an appeal of her EPR through the Evaluation Reports Appeal Board (ERAB) under the provisions of AFI 36-2406, Officer and Enlisted Evaluation Systems. The Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records (AFBCMR) is the highest level of administrative appeal within the Department of the Air Force. The AFBCMR will not consider a case until all avenues of administrative relief have been exhausted. In accordance with AFI 36-2401, Correcting Officer and Enlisted Evaluation Reports, the applicant can apply to the Evaluation Reports Appeals Board (ERAB) to appeal the contested EPR. The ERAB works under the assumption that evaluation reports are accurate and objective. Therefore, the applicant must provide strong evidence to overcome the report's presumed validity. The applicant should submit a new AF Form 948, Application for Correction/Removal of Evaluation Reports, with all required supporting documentation, through the vMPF/Evaluation Appeals found under the Most Popular Applications. A complete copy of the AFPC/DPSIDE evaluation is at Exhibit C. APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant refutes the OPR advisory opinion that she did not pursue all available administrative avenues prior to seeking reform from her AFBCMR application. She reiterated her contention that her chain of command gave her no support, however, the Chief, HAF Military Personnel Division during the contested EPR rating period, supported a review of the contested EPR. After discussing her situation with the Area Defense Council (ADC) at her current station, they recommended she submit her request to the AFBCMR. Additionally, a member of the 48th Force Support Squadron Evaluations Section told her that submitting her case to the ERAB was not an option due to the complexity of her request, as well as the length of time that had elapsed. She believes her actions have demonstrated that she exhausted all available administrative avenues to have this issue resolved (Exhibit E). 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 office of primary responsibility has reviewed this application and indicated there 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 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-2014-03088 in Executive Session on 19 May 15 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: The following documentary evidence pertaining AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2014-03088 was considered: Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 21 Jul 14, w/atchs. Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPSIDE, dated 6 Mar 15. Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 1 Apr 15. Exhibit E.  Letter, Applicant, dated 22 Apr 15.