RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2009-00079 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) for the period ending 20 Dec 07 be removed from his records and he be given supplemental promotion consideration during cycle 09E8. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: Upon leaving his assignment, he was awarded a MAJCOM annual award (PACAF IDMT SNCO of the Year) which was not added to his performance evaluation. He made it a point to have this important award noted in the Wing/CC endorsement section. He was not offered the opportunity to sign the EPR and the noted award was removed. This could potentially harm his promotion opportunities as this was the 2nd MAJCOM award in a row. It took approximately 4 months for them to begin the report which was eventually finalized in Jul 08. He believes the neglect of this information was capricious and without cause as he was not afforded the opportunity to review and sign the performance report prior to close out and forwarding to AFPC. He understands he received a "firewall five" report which may cause an overlook of this report, but promotion to the top two grades in the enlisted structure also requires a continued display of progression which was lost with this particular report in question. In support of his request, the applicant provides copies of his EPRs from the periods ending 20 Mar 05 to 20 Dec 07 and a copy of his Meritorious Service Medal citation. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. _________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant is currently serving on active duty in the grade of master sergeant (E-7) having assumed that grade effective and with a date of rank of 1 Jul 04. The following is a resume of the applicant’s EPR profile: PERIOD ENDING PROMOTION RECOMMENDATION 20 Mar 05 5 20 Mar 06 5 20 Mar 07 5 20 Dec 07* 3 * Contested report _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS: AFPC/DPSID recommends denial. DPSID states that the applicant's review is not intended for the ratee to concur or nonconcur with the contents; it is only to acknowledge receipt and there are procedures in place when the ratee is unavailable to sign, in this case due to a Permanent Change of Station. Furthermore, the applicant is not the one who determines what comments will, or will not be placed in the evaluation; that responsibility rests with the evaluator's and in this case the senior rater. Comments regarding an award are not mandatory; therefore, the omission of such does not make the report inaccurate or unjust. The complete AFPC/DPSID evaluation is at Exhibit B. AFPC/DPSOE states the first time the contested EPR will be used in the promotion process is during cycle 09E8 to senior master sergeant (2-20 Feb 09). Should the AFBCMR remove the report as requested, the applicant will be entitled to supplemental consideration. The complete AFPC/DPSOE evaluation is at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS: Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on 6 Mar 09 for review and comment within 30 days. As of this date, this office has received no response. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT: 1.  The applicant has 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. After reviewing the evidence provided, we are not persuaded that the contested report is an inaccurate depiction of the applicant’s performance and demonstrated potential for the period in question. The applicant's contentions regarding the omission of his award are duly noted. However, we believe his assertions have been adequately addressed by the Air Force office of primary responsibility. Therefore, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of AFPC/DPSID and adopt its rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice. In the absence of persuasive evidence to the contrary, 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 issue involved. Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorably considered. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of material error or injustice; that the application was denied without a personal appearance; and that 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 Docket Number BC-2009-00079 in Executive Session on 30 April 2009, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: , Panel Chair , Member , Member The following documentary evidence pertaining to Docket Number BC-2009-00079 was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 5 Jan 09, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Letter, AFPC/DPSID, dated 12 Feb 09. Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPSOE, dated 17 Feb 09. Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 6 Mar 09. Panel Chair 2 3