RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2007-00005
            INDEX NUMBER:  111.00; 135.00
      XXXXXXXXXXXXX    COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  No


MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:  3 Jun 08


_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

The enlisted performance  reports  (EPRs)  rendered  on  him  for  the
following periods be declared void and removed from his records:

        A.  31 Jan 89 through 1 Jan 90 (Applicant refers to as EPR #2)

        B.  2 Jan 90 through 1 Jan 91 (Applicant refers to as EPR #3)

        C.  2 Jan 91 through 23 Sep 91 (Applicant refers to as EPR #1)

He be given supplemental  promotion  consideration  to  the  grade  of
master sergeant (MSgt).

His retirement be recomputed based on any changes in  grade,  service,
etc.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

In  a  23-page  statement,  applicant  provides  an  account  of   his
performance during his military service  and  provides  the  following
contentions regarding the contested EPRs:

        A.  EPR #2.  Applicant states it should be noted that this EPR
started while he was assigned at Hahn Air Base (AB) Germany, but ended
at MacDill  Air  Force  Base  (AFB),  Florida.   The  applicant  asks,
rhetorically, “how did a negative environment  start  right  behind  3
consecutive very good performance reports, turn around into a referral
performance report and the negative environment continued at the  next
duty station.”  Applicant states he does  not  recall  being  informed
that the “2” EPR was a referral  report.   It  appears  the  applicant
discusses his duties and manner of performance to show  that  the  “2”
EPR was unjustified.

        B.  EPR #3.  Applicant states that the closeout date of 1  Jan
90 is incorrect because he was at the Hahn AB more than 30 days longer
and did not arrive at MacDill until 9 Feb 90.

        C.  EPR #1.  Applicant states that  a  chief  master  sergeant
made threats against his career.  Applicant discusses his  interaction
with the chief and further  discusses  his  overall  duty  performance
during the period in question.

Applicant submitted an addendum  to  his  application  discussing  the
Weighted Airman Promotion cutoff scores for individuals  selected  for
promotion to master sergeant in his Air  Force  AFSC.   The  applicant
contends that based on his reading of the chart, his score  was  above
the cutoff for promotion.

In support of his appeal, the applicant submits the 23-page  statement
with numerous attachments related to the contested EPRs.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant entered active duty in the Air Force on 17  Oct  72  and
was promoted up to the grade of technical  sergeant  (TSgt).   He  was
retired effective 1 Nov 92 in the grade of TSgt due to  high  year  of
tenure (HYT).

A resume of the applicant last ten performance reports follows:

      Closeout Date               Overall Rating

       *01 Jan 84                       8
        30 Jun 84                       8
        30 Jan 85                       8
        30 Jan 86                       8
        30 Jan 87                       9
        30 Jan 88                       9
        30 Jan 89                       9
      **01 Jan 90                       2
        01 Jan 91                       3
        23 Sep 91                       1

* Ratings assigned under the Airman Performance Reports (APRs)  system
with “9” as highest possible rating.

**Start of ratings assigned under  the  Enlisted  Performance  Reports
(EPRs) system with “5” as the highest possible rating.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPPEP recommends denial of  the  applicant’s  requests.   DPPPEP
provides a  response  to  each  of  the  applicant’s  contentions  and
provides rationale as to why the applicant’s  appeal  fails  based  on
merit.  However, they do point out the applicant’s appeal may also  be
denied on the basis of timeliness.  They note the applicant has waited
16 years to file his appeal and, as a result, the Air Force no  longer
has documents on file making it hard to determine the  merits  of  the
applicant’s position.

The complete evaluation is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

In his response to the Air Force evaluation, applicant states that  he
knows  the  chance  for  him   to   receive   supplemental   promotion
consideration is “slim and no guarantee.”  He  states  that  the  main
reason for his application is to remove the three bad  EPRs  from  his
record.  He further notes that when he received the “1”  and  “2”  EPR
ratings he attempted to contest them.  He only  found  out  about  the
AFBCMR after he received a copy of his records in 2005.

In further support of his  appeal,  applicant  submits  a  copy  of  a
recognition certificate and what appears to be a timeline  related  to
his assignment and accomplishments.

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

_________________________________________________________________

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  error  or  injustice.   We  took  notice  of   the
applicant's complete submission in judging the  merits  of  the  case;
however, we agree with the opinions and  recommendations  of  the  Air
Force offices of primary responsibility and adopt their  rationale  as
the basis for our conclusion that  the  applicant  has  not  been  the
victim of an error or injustice.  Additionally,  after  reviewing  the
information submitted by the applicant as an addendum to  his  initial
appeal, we believe his interpretation of the Weighted Airman Promotion
scores leading  him  to  believe  he  should  have  been  promoted  is
incorrect.  It appears he is interpreting the “Total Score” column  on
the chart as being the sum of the individual totals indicated in  each
column.  However, as we understand it the “Total Score” column is  the
actual cutoff score required for promotion and each individual  column
represents the average score for that area.  Therefore, 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 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-2007-
00005 in Executive Session on 22 May 2007 under the provisions of  AFI
36-2603:

      Mr. Laurence M. Groner, Panel Chair
      Ms. Terri G. Spoutz, Member
      Mr. James A. Wolffe, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 27 Dec 06, w/atchs; Addendum,
                dated 1 Jan 07 w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPPPEP, dated 8 Feb 07.
    Exhibit D.  AFPC/DPPPWB, dated 23 Feb 07.
    Exhibit E.  AFPC/DPPRRP, dated 7 Mar 07.
    Exhibit F.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 20 Apr 07.
    Exhibit G.  Letter, Applicant, dated 7 May 07, w/atchs.




                                   LAURENCE M. GRONER
                                   Panel Chair