RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF: 			DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-05044

  						COUNSEL:  NONE

						HEARING DESIRED:  NO 


APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) dated 21 Jul 04 be changed 
to an overall rating of “4”.


APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He is applying for the Army’s Warrant Officer Candidate School 
to become an Aviation Officer and an increase in the overall 
rating from “3” to “4” of his Jul 04 EPR could affect his 
ability to be selected for the training slot.  His Jul 04 EPR 
had seven separate sections to be rated.  Four sections were 
rated at “4”, while three sections were rated at “3”. By 
weighted standards, that alone should push his rating to an 
overall “4”.

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


STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant initially entered the Regular Air Force on 21 Nov 
00.

On 22 Jul 04, he received an overall “3” EPR rating while 
assigned as a weather forecaster at Spangdahlem Air Base, 
Germany.  

On 15 Mar 07, the applicant was furnished an honorable 
discharge, and was credited with 6 years, 3 months, and 25 days 
of active service.   


AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPSID recommends denial indicating there is no evidence of 
an error or an injustice.  The applicant failed to provide 
sufficient, substantiating documentation or evidence to prove 
his assertions that the contested evaluation was rendered 
unfairly or unjustly nor does he provide any support or 
clarification from the members of the rating chain.  In 
addition, the applicant failed to exhaust all available avenues 
of administrative relief and did not file an appeal through the 
Evaluation Report Appeals Board.  The contested EPR has been a 
matter of record for over 10 years and the applicant offered no 
justification for the delay in asserting his claim.  

A complete copy of the AFPC/DPSID evaluation is at Exhibit C.

AFPC/DPSOE has no equity in the decision regarding the 
applicant’s request to upgrade the rating on the contested 
report.  However, DPSOE did provide promotion analysis if the 
contested EPR was upgraded to a “4” and determined he would have 
been selected for cycle 05E5 with a date of rank and effective 
date of 1 Dec 05.  

A complete copy of the AFPC/DPSOE evaluation is at Exhibit D.

AFPC/JA recommends denying the application as untimely.  
However, if the Board finds it in the interest of justice to 
consider the application, JA concurred with DPSIDE’s 
recommendation to deny the requested upgrade as the applicant 
failed to provide sufficient evidence that the EPR was unfair or 
unjust and observed the statements within the contested report 
itself fully supports overall ratings of “3”.  Of particular 
note, his rater commented "Attended financial planning class to 
get personal finances under control--improved financial 
responsibility" and his additional rater commented "better 
attention to detail on mission/personal issues will boost 
performance".  These comments directly address on- and off-duty 
and fully support the lower ratings on the front page of the 
EPR.

A complete copy of the AFPC/JA evaluation is at Exhibit E.


APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the 
applicant on 4 Nov 15 for review and comment within 30 days 
(Exhibit F).  As of this date, no response has been received by 
this office.


FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS OF THE BOARD:

Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate 
the existence of an error or injustice.  After a careful review 
of the applicant's contentions, documentation submitted in 
support of the request, and the available evidence of record, we 
are not convinced the applicant has provided sufficient evidence 
for us to conclude that he is the victim of an error or 
injustice.  We also note the applicant did not file the 
application within three years after the alleged error or 
injustice was discovered, or should have been discovered, as 
required by Title 10, United States Code, Section 1552 and Air 
Force Instruction 36-2603.  While the applicant claims a date of 
discovery of less than three years prior to receipt of the 
application, we believe a reasonable date of discovery was more 
than three years prior to receipt of the application.  
Therefore, because we do not find it would be in the interest of 
justice to recommend granting relief, and the applicant has 
offered no plausible reason for the delay in filing the 
application, we cannot conclude it would be in the interest of 
justice to excuse the failure to timely file the application.  
Accordingly, we find the application untimely.


THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:

The application was not timely filed and it would not be in the 
interest of justice to waive the untimeliness.  It is the 
decision of the Board, therefore, to reject the application as 
untimely.


The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket 
Number BC-2014-05044 in Executive Session on 29 Jan 16 under the 
provisions of AFI 36-2603:

	Panel Chair
	Member
	Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

	Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 11 Nov 14, w/atchs.
	Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
	Exhibit C.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPSID, dated 13 Oct 15.
	Exhibit D.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPSOE, dated 26 Oct 15.
	Exhibit E.  Memorandum, AFPC/JA, dated 3 Nov 15.
	Exhibit F.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 4 Nov 15.
1 2