RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2005-03042
            INDEX CODE:  111.05

      xxxxxxxxxxxxxx   COUNSEL:  NONE

      xxxxxxxxxxxxx    HEARING DESIRED:  NO

MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:  8 APR 2007

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

The Enlisted Performance Report  (EPR)  closing  out  on  21  June  2002  be
declared void and removed from his records.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The report is not a fair assessment of his performance for this  period  and
the report was orchestrated to jeopardize his career.   He  was  told  by  a
subordinate that his supervisor said it was his goal  to  have  him  removed
from the Air Force.  He was charged with financial  irresponsibility  for  a
cable television bill for $29.00,  which  was  for  equipment  not  returned
after termination of service.  He was late for work after the 911  terrorist
attacks, because there was only one entrance and exit to  the  base.   While
returning to his base after a space A flight, the aircraft was diverted  due
to an emergency and was  down  for  two  days.   He  alerted  his  chain  of
command, but was still charged with being absent without leave  (AWOL).   He
was charged with driving under the influence (DUI) during this  period,  for
which he takes full responsibility.  However, his work did not  suffer,  his
performance was stellar and he received numerous accolades for his work.

In support of his request, the applicant provided  two  Character  Reference
Letters and copies of his AF Form 910, Enlisted Performance Reports.

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

_________________________________________________________________





STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air  Force  in  the  grade  of  airman
basic for a term of 4 years.  He was progressively promoted to the grade  of
staff sergeant.

His EPR profile reflects the following:

      PERIOD ENDING    EVALUATION OF POTENTIAL

          25 Sep 95          5
           1 Apr 96          5
          20 Sep 96          5
          29 Aug 97          5
          29 Aug 98          5
          29 Aug 99          5
          29 Aug 00          5
          29 Aug 01          4
         *21 Jun 02          2
          21 Jun 03          4
           9 Dec 03          4
           9 Dec 04          5

* Contested report

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPP recommends denial.  According to DPPP  the  Air  Force  policy  is
that an evaluation report is accurate as written when it  becomes  a  matter
of record.  To effectively challenge an EPR, it is necessary  to  hear  from
all the members of the rating chain--not  only  for  support  but  also  for
clarification/explanation.   The  applicant  has  failed  to   provide   any
information/support from the rating chain on  the  contested  EPR.   In  the
absence of information from evaluators, official substantiation of error  or
injustice from the Inspector General (IG) or Military Equal  Opportunity  is
appropriate, but not provided in this case

The applicant provided two memorandums for support from individuals  outside
the rating  chain  of  the  contested  EPR.   While  those  individuals  are
entitled to their opinions of  the  applicant’s  duty  performance  and  the
events occurring around the  time  the  EPR  was  rendered,  DPPP  does  not
believe they were in a better position  to  evaluate  the  applicant’s  duty
performance than those who were specifically assigned  that  responsibility.
Therefore, their opinions are inappropriate to his appeal.

DPPP states a review of the applicant’s record reveals the  first  time  the
contested report would  have  normally  been  considered  in  the  promotion
process was cycle 03E6.  However, the fact that the report  was  a  referral
rendered the applicant ineligible for promotion consideration in  accordance
with AFI 36-2502, Table 1, Rule 22.

The 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  6  Jan
06, 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  an  error  or  an  injustice.   The  applicant  contends  the
contested EPR is unjust.  However, after thoroughly reviewing  the  evidence
of record and the evidence submitted by the applicant, we are not  persuaded
that the contested report should be  declared  void  and  removed  from  his
records.   We  note  the  applicant  was  charged  with  driving  under  the
influence during the period covering the  contested  report  to    which  he
pleaded guilty and received a LOR.  The Board further  notes  the  applicant
has failed to provide any support from his rating  chain  on  the  contested
EPR.  Therefore, we agree with the opinions and recommendations of  the  Air
Force office of primary responsibility 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  evidence  to  the  contrary,  we  find  no
compelling basis to recommend granting the relief sought.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:

The applicant be notified that the evidence presented  did  not  demonstrate
the existence of an 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-2005-
03042 in Executive Session on 8 March 2006 under the provisions of  AFI  36-
2603:

                 Ms. Kathy L. Boockholdt, Panel Chair
                 Ms. Cheryl V. Jacobson, Member
                 Mr. August Doddato, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, undated, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPP, dated 27 Dec 05.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 6 Jan 2006.





                                   KATHY L. BOOCKHOLDT
                                   Panel Chair