RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2004-03103
            INDEX CODE:  111.05

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED: NOT INDICATED

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) for the period 4 October 2001 to
3 October 2002 be removed from his record.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The Excellent rating he received on an EPR for  the  period  4 October
2001 to 3 October  2002  was  not  a  fair  rating,  and  not  a  true
reflection of  his  accomplishments  during  the  rating  period.   He
contends the statements in the EPR are both unprofessional and biased.
 In particular, there are four negative statements  in  the  EPR  that
insult his character, loyalty to duty, and respect for authority.   He
contends the EPR could easily be construed as a referral based on  the
language of the EPR.  He contends he  detects  prejudice,  inequality,
unfairness, slander, and the willingness to be untruthful in  the  EPR
to the end he feels an all out attack has been  launched  against  his
reputation as a senior non-commissioned officer (SNCO) and  a  person.
He considers the EPR  to  be  a  subtle  form  of  discrimination  and
harassment both by his rating official and the endorsing official.

He contends the Excellent rating and his eventual  non  retention  for
reenlistment in the FLANG were both forms of reprisal because  he  had
filed a Military Equal Opportunity complaint against his supervisor.

In support of his  appeal,  the  applicant  has  provided  a  personal
statement, copies of performance feedback  sessions,  policy  letters,
findings of Military Equal Opportunity (MEO) investigations, a copy of
the EPR in question, and his selective retention program paperwork.

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

_________________________________________________________________



STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant, a retired former member of  the  Florida  Air  National
Guard (FLANG), began  his  military  career  on  13  April  1982.   He
eventually attained the grade of master sergeant with a date  of  rank
of 2 October 1999.

On 16 August 2002, he received a memorandum  from  the  325th  Fighter
Wing commander (325FW/CC) addressing the applicant’s appeal of a prior
Military Equal Opportunity  case  finding  of  unsubstantiated  racial
discrimination.   The  FW/CC  found  the  appeal  unsubstantiated  but
indicated the applicant’s complaint had  uncovered  other  significant
problems with the unit climate.  On 9  December  2002,  his  commander
signed an EPR  for  the  period  4 October  2001  to  3  October  2002
indicating his approval of the overall Excellent rating.  On  12  June
2003, the Assistant Adjutant General  for  Air  (AAG/A)  notified  the
applicant that he was not approved for continued retention and that he
would be separated from the FLANG  effective  30  December  2003.   On
6 October  2003,  the  HQ  Southeast  Air  Defense  Sector   commander
(SEADS/CC) notified him that after a thorough review of the Report  of
Investigation (ROI) prepared by the  investigating  officer  (IO)  and
after a legal review by 325 FW/Judge advocate (JA),  all  the  charges
brought by the applicant were dismissed.  On 30 September 2004 he  was
honorably discharged and he was retired effective 1 October 2004 after
22 years of service.  He was retired in the grade of master sergeant.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

ANG/DPFOC  recommends  denial.   DPFOC  states  the  EPR  in  question
indicates the applicant was a strong performer in terms  of  technical
skill.  DPFOC notes the EPR highlighted some areas  where  the  rating
official felt the applicant could improve in dealing with  leadership.
DPFOC states the rating of Excellent did not  seem  inappropriate  and
since it was not written using  derogatory  terms  it  should  not  be
considered a referral EPR as indicated by the applicant.  No error  or
injustice  was  found  in  this  case  nor   was   any   evidence   of
discrimination found with the EPR.

DPFOC’s complete evaluation is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 5
August 2005 for review and comment within 30 days.  As of  this  date,
no response has been received by this office.

_________________________________________________________________

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 a thorough review  of  the
evidence of record and applicant's submission, we  are  not  persuaded
that his uncorroborated assertions of reprisals  for  filing  Military
Equal Opportunity  complaints,  in  and  by  themselves,  sufficiently
persuasive to override the rationale  provided  by  the  Air  National
Guard.  Therefore, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of the
Air National Guard office of  primary  responsibility  and  adopt  the
rationale expressed as the basis for our decision that  the  applicant
has failed to sustain his burden of having suffered either an error or
injustice.  He has not provided any evidence to support his contention
his EPR was written with an Excellent rating as  a  reprisal  for  his
submission of a racial discrimination complaint.  In fact, the  rating
of  Excellent  and  the  absence  of  derogatory   comments   indicate
otherwise.  Further, we were not able to ascertain  any  link  between
the EPR in question and his non-selection for  retention  by  a  State
selective retention board.  Therefore, in the  absence  of  persuasive
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 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 AFBCMR Docket Number BC-
2004-03103 in Executive  Session  on  27  September  2005,  under  the
provisions of AFI 36-2603:

      Mr. Michael J. Novel, Panel Chair
      Mr. Gregory A. Parker, Member
      Mr. Patrick C. Daugherty, Member





The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 1 Oct 04, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, ANG/DPFOC, dated 27 Jul 05.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 5 Aug 05.




                                   MICHAEL J. NOVEL
                                   Panel Chair