RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  01-02101
            (CASE 1)
            INDEX CODE:  110.03

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO


_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

He be reinstated to active duty effective 1 Jun 98, with back pay  and
benefits.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He was not selected for an Active Guard Reserve (AGR)  position  based
on the fact that he did not have Enlisted Performance  Reports  (EPRs)
accomplished in a timely manner.

In support of his appeal, the applicant  provided  extracts  from  his
military personnel records, including copies of his  EPRs,  and  other
documents associated with the matter under review.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant enlisted in the Air Force Reserve on 20 Feb 86 for a  period
of four years, in the grade of sergeant.  He was ordered  to  extended
active duty on 1 Jun 94 for 48 months.  On 31 May 98, he was  released
from active duty and transferred to the  Air  Force  Reserve.   As  of
retirement year ending 23 Jun 98, he was credited  with  15  years  of
satisfactory federal service for retirement.

Information extracted from the Personnel Data System  (PDS)  indicates
that the applicant was voluntarily ordered to extended active duty  on
26 Sep 01.  He is currently serving on active duty  in  the  grade  of
senior master sergeant.

Applicant's Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) profile follows:

      PERIOD ENDING    EVALUATION

       1 Sep 94        5 (NON-EAD)
      31 May 98        5 (STAT TOUR)
      28 Mar 01        5 (NON-EAD)

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

ARPC/CV recommended denial.  According to ARPC/CV the AGR program  was
still a  specified  period  of  time  contract  during  the  1997/1998
timeframe with no guarantee of continuation in the  same  position  or
selection to a new one.  During this time, EPRs were an optional  item
of  the  AGR  application  and  included  at  the  discretion  of  the
applicant.  It would not have impacted the selection  or  nonselection
if not included.  While the applicant’s performance  at  the  National
Personnel Records Center (NPRC) was excellent, another  applicant  was
selected to fill the position, as was the ARPC Commander’s option.

ARPC/CV indicated that when the  applicant’s  supervisor  assumed  the
duties as his supervisor in Jan 97, she inquired  about  accomplishing
an  EPR,  however,  she  was  erroneously   advised   concerning   the
requirement for an EPR.  Since there were no EPRs written since 30 May
94, she accomplished an EPR for the period 31 May 94  through  31  May
98.

According to ARPC/CV, the applicant chose not to apply for any of  the
advertised AGR vacancies outside of the St.  Louis  area  during  that
time.  An announcement for the NPRC AGR position  was  released  again
this summer and the  applicant  submitted  his  application.   He  was
selected for the position and was notified.  He started  his  new  AGR
tour on 26 Sep 01.

A complete copy of the ARPC/CV evaluation is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Applicant reviewed the advisory opinion and indicated that  no  annual
EPRs from 1994 to 1998 jeopardized any chances for fair  treatment  or
consideration of the AGR position in St. Louis in  1998,  or  the  AGR
position at Scott AFB earlier in 1998.  The only  way  his  supervisor
attempted to correct the problem was by combining all four years  into
one grossly late report delivered to his home address late in Aug  98.
Any assignments that he applied  for  inquired  about  the  situation.
This has tarnished his job opportunities with  the  Air  Force,  since
everyone else on active duty receives annual reports for his time  and
grade in the system.  The lack of evaluations left him with a loss  of
income of over $100,000  without  medical,  dental  benefits,  and  no
chances for promotion.

Applicant’s complete response and additional documentary  evidence  is
at Exhibit E.

_________________________________________________________________

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 probable 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 (OPR) and adopt  their  rationale  as
the basis for our conclusion that  the  applicant  has  not  been  the
victim of an error or injustice.  No evidence has been presented which
has shown to our satisfaction that the decision not to extend his  AGR
tour was based on his EPRs or the lack thereof,  but  rather  was  the
result of command discretion regarding AGR tours.  We find no abuse of
that discretionary authority.  In view of the foregoing,  and  in  the
absence of evidence to the contrary, 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 probable  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 12 Dec 01, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

      Mr. Henry Romo, Jr., Panel Chair
      Mr. Patrick R. Wheeler, Member
      Mr. Roscoe Hinton, Jr., Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 23 Jul 01, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, ARPC/CV, dated 10 Sep 01.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 14 Sep 01.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, applicant, dated 21 Sep 01, w/atchs.




                                   PATRICK R. WHEELER
                                   Acting Panel Chair