RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:			DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2009-00455
						COUNSEL:  NONE
      HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) rendered for the period 29 September 2004 through 26 November 2005 be removed from his records.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

His Article 15 was set aside and all benefits and pay entitlements were granted and restored.  

In support of his request, the applicant provides a personal statement and the portion of his Article 15 reflecting his punishment of reduction in grade to senior airman and a reprimand, be set-aside.  

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The Military Personnel Data System (MilPDS) reflects the applicant is currently serving on active duty in the grade of technical sergeant with a date of rank of 1 May 2006.  He has a total Active Federal Military Service Date of 8 March 1995 and a projected date of separation of 24 February 2010.

The following is a resume of the applicant’s EPR profile:

	PERIOD ENDING		PROMOTION RECOMMENDATION

    09 Jan 97				5
    11 Aug 97				3
    11 Aug 98				4
    11 Aug 99				5
    11 Aug 00				4
    11 Aug 01				5

The applicant’s EPR profile, continued:

    11 Aug 02				5
    28 Sep 03				5
    28 Sep 04				5
    26 Nov 05*				3
    26 Nov 06				5

* Contested report 


The remaining relevant facts, extracted from the applicant’s service records, are contained in the advisory opinion prepared by the Air Force office of primary responsibility at Exhibit B.  
_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPSIDEP recommends denial and states, in part, that although the MilPDS reflects the contested report, the actual EPR, itself, is missing.  Therefore, an Air Force Form 77, Letter of Evaluation, has been placed in his record explaining the report is missing but the overall rating was a “3.”  Without a copy of the report, they are unable to determine whether the Article 15 was mentioned or whether it was the basis for the overall rating of “3.”  Additionally, without a copy of the report, or statements from the evaluators, they cannot confirm whether the report contained inaccurate information or not; therefore, the MilPDS update must remain.  

DPSIDEP indicates the applicant filed an appeal through the Evaluation Reports Appeal Board (ERAB) under the provisions of Air Force Instruction 36-2401; however, it was returned in February 2007 without action for additional documentation, and closed in May 2008 after receiving no response.  

The complete AFPC/DPSIDEP evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit B.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 8 May 2008 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 not timely filed; however, it is in the interest of justice to excuse the failure to timely file.

3.  Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of an error or injustice.  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 and adopt their rationale as the basis for our conclusion the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice.  Therefore, in the absence of evidence showing the contested report is an inaccurate depiction of his performance during the rating period in question, we find no compelling basis to recommend granting the relief sought in this application.  

_________________________________________________________________

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 this application in Executive Session on 15 July 2009, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

			, Panel Chair
			, Member
			, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered in connection with AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2009-00455:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 12 Jan 09, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Letter, AFPC/DPSIDEP, dated 15 Apr 09, w/atchs.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 8 May 09.




      Panel Chair

2


3