RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF: 			DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2015-02540

  						COUNSEL:  NONE

						HEARING DESIRED:  YES 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

1.  His rating under standards and conduct be changed to “clearly exceeds” on his Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) for the period of 29 Jul 13 through 16 May 14. 

2.  He be awarded a Meritorious Service Medal (MSM) for all his efforts at Kunsan Air Base, Republic of Korea.  

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He received the EPR markdown as a result of an unfortunate incident where he was hospitalized for five days for being suicidal and was physically unable to report for a recall.  For failing to report for a recall, he received a Letter of Reprimand (LOR) and never received a decoration.  He feels his commander’s actions were unjust.

In support of his request, he provides a recent Air Force Form 1206, Nomination for Award, his wife’s written account outlining the events leading up to his failing to report for duty, several character reference letters, a copy of the contested performance report, and his discharge summary from his hospitalization.

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

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant initially entered the Regular Air Force on 6 May 98.

The applicant was assigned to the 8th Civil Engineer Squadron, Kunsan Air Base, Republic of Korea, when he received the contested report, for the period 29 Jul 13 to 16 May 14, with an overall rating of 5.  Item III, Performance Assessment, Block 2, Standards: Enforcement and Personal Adherence, Conduct, Character, Military Bearing & Customs and Courtesies, he received a rating of “Above Average.”

The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the memorandum prepared by the Air Force offices of primary responsibility (OPRs), which are attached at Exhibits C and D.    

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DP2SP recommends denying the applicant’s request for the MSM indicating there is no evidence of an error or an injustice.  The MSM was established by Executive Order 11448 on Jan. 16, 1969 and may be awarded to any member of the Armed Forces of the United States who distinguishes themselves by either outstanding achievement or meritorious service to the United States.  According to Air Force Instruction 36-2803, The Air Force Military Awards and Decorations Program, paragraph 1.15.6, no member is automatically entitled to a decoration upon permanent change of station, permanent change of assignment, retirement, separation, completion of a tour of duty, or reaching/achieving other points at which a decoration may be recommended.  Supervisors must decide at these points if a decoration is appropriate.  In the applicant’s record, there is no official documentation to verify award of the MSM with three Oak Leaf Clusters.  In order to reasonably consider the applicant's request, the applicant must submit a recommendation from someone with firsthand knowledge of the act/achievement preferably from someone within his chain of command at the time of the act/achievement, a proposed citation with inclusive dates, a summary of his single act of heroism or extraordinary achievement, and eyewitness statements.

A complete copy of the AFPC/DP2SP evaluation is at Exhibit C.

AFPC/DPSID recommends denying the applicant’s request to correct his 16 May 14 EPR indicating there is no evidence of an error or an injustice.  The applicant failed to exhaust an available avenue of administrative relief as he did not file an appeal through the Evaluation Reports Appeals Board (ERAB) under AFI 36-2406, Officer and Enlisted Evaluation Systems, 2 Jan 13.  Furthermore, IAW AFI 36-2406, paragraph 10.2.4, states that the ERAB will not consider nor approve requests to change an evaluator's ratings or comments if the evaluator does not support the change and urges the Board to assert the same requirement as to not circumvent the evaluator’s which bear the responsibility to making a fair and equitable assessment at the time the report was written.  The applicant provided insufficient evidence to show the contested EPR was rendered unfairly or unjustly.  

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

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS:

Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on 19 May 16 for review and comment within 30 days (Exhibit E).  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 an error or injustice.  With regard to his decoration request, we took notice of the applicant’s complete submission in judging the merits of the case; however, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of the Air Force office of primary responsibility (OPR) and adopt its rationale as the basis for our conclusion the applicant has not been the victim of an error of injustice.  With regard to his request to correct his Enlisted Performance Report, 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 OPR 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 his request to change his Enlisted Performance Report is not ripe for adjudication at this level as there exists a subordinate level of appeal that has not first been depleted.  Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no basis to recommend granting the requested relief.

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.
Furthermore, the Board determines that the applicant be notified that all available avenues of administrative relief have not been exhausted with regard to his contested performance report; and the application will only be reconsidered upon submission of documentary evidence indicating that said avenues of administrative relief have been exhausted.  

The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2015-02540 in Executive Session on 14 Jul 16 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

	, Panel Chair
	, Member
	, Member

The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2015-02540 was considered:

	Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 16 Jun 15, w/atchs.
	Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
	Exhibit C.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPSID, dated 7 Apr 16.
	Exhibit D.  Memorandum, AFPC/DP2SP, dated 16 May 16.
	Exhibit E.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 19 May 16.