RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2007-01531
            INDEX CODES:  111.02, 131.00

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His Enlisted Performance Reports (EPRs) closing 30 Apr 02,  30 Apr 03,
and 30 Apr 04 be amended to reflect  overall  ratings  of  “5”  or  be
declared void and removed from his records.

He be provided supplemental consideration for promotion to  the  grade
of staff sergeant beginning with cycle 05E5.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The contested reports contained unfair ratings that were the result of
discrimination, coercion, and a lack of feedback and supervision.

In support of his appeal, the applicant provided an expanded statement
and supportive statements.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 1 Sep  00.   On  30 Sep
04, he was honorably released from active duty under the provisions of
AFI 36-3208 (Completion of Required Active Service).  He was  assigned
an RE Code of 3I  (Airman  selected  for  reenlistment,  but  HQ  AFPC
removed the airman’s name from the CJR waiting list  within  five  (5)
months of DOS).  He was credited with  four  years  and  one month  of
active service.

On 23 Mar 06, the Board considered an application  for  correction  of
military records pertaining to the applicant in which he requested the
following:

      a.  His reenlistment eligibility (RE) code be changed to  “RE-1”
to allow his reenlistment.

      b.  He be given a Selective Reenlistment Bonus (SRB).

       c.  He  be  allowed  to  cross-train  into  another  Air  Force
Specialty Code (AFSC).

      d.  He receive back pay from the date of his discharge.

      e.  He be promoted to the rank he would  have  attained  had  he
remained on active duty.

      f.  If reinstated to active duty,  his  personal  belongings  be
shipped at government expense to his new assignment station.

      g.  He be allowed to pay back any leave he sold at the  time  of
his separation.

The Board noted the applicant had a Career Job Reservation (CJR)  that
was erroneously removed because of a possible Medical Evaluation Board
(MEB) which would have made him ineligible for reenlistment.  The  MEB
was never conducted and the applicant’s CJR was not reinstated, as  it
appears it should have been had the proper procedures  been  followed.
The Board also noted the applicant’s AFSC was authorized an  SRB,  and
that if his CJR had not been erroneously removed, he would  have  been
eligible to reenlist prior to his SRB being terminated.  As  a  result
of the removal of his CJR, the  applicant  was  subsequently  released
from active duty.  Accordingly, the Board recommended the applicant be
reinstated to active duty, provided a constructive  reenlistment  with
entitlement to an SRB, and  provided  supplemental  consideration  for
promotion to the grade of staff.  In addition, the  Board  recommended
he be allowed to pay back any  leave  he  sold  at  the  time  of  his
separation.  In the Board’s view, this was proper and fitting  relief.
On 21 Apr 06, The Director, Air Force Review Boards  Agency,  accepted
the Board’s recommended corrective action.

Information extracted from the Personnel Data System  (PDS)  indicates
the applicant is currently serving on active  duty  in  the  grade  of
senior airman, with a date of rank of 1  Sep  03.   His  Total  Active
Federal Military Service Date (TAFMSD) is 1 Sep 00.

Applicant’s EPR profile since 2002 follows:

      PERIOD ENDING    EVALUATION

  *   30 Apr 02        3
  *   30 Apr 03        4
  *   30 Apr 04        4

* Contested Reports.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPPEP recommends denial indicating that an evaluation report  is
considered to represent the rating chain’s best judgment at  the  time
it is rendered.  Once a report  is  accepted  for  file,  only  strong
evidence to the contrary warrants removal or a change in the  ratings.
The burden of proof is  on  the  applicant.   The  applicant  has  not
substantiated his case that the reports were inaccurate and unjust  at
the time they were rendered.  They noted the  reports  involved  three
different raters and three different additional raters, as well as the
first sergeants and commanders performing the reviews, and that all of
them concurred with the assessments of the applicant’s performance.

A complete copy of the AFPC/DPPPEP evaluation is at Exhibit C.

AFPC/DPPPWB recommends denial noting the applicant was  supplementally
considered for promotion to staff sergeant for cycles 05E5  and  06E5.
They indicated that should the Board remove all the EPRs or change the
overall ratings to “5,” it would not increase the  applicant’s  scores
sufficiently to make him a selectee for promotion  for  either  cycle.
In order for the applicant to be considered supplementally, the  Board
would have to direct that the report closing 3 Apr 07 be used  in  the
supplemental process.  However, it would not change the outcome of the
applicant’s nonselection.

A complete copy of the AFPC/DPPPWB evaluation is at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Applicant reviewed the  advisory  opinion  and  furnished  a  response
regarding the cutoff score for cycle 05E5, which he believes was cited
incorrectly.  He also indicated he believes he has  provided  specific
instances  of  the  racial  abuse  he  incurred.   According  to   the
applicant, he  contacted  a  number  of  individuals  requesting  they
provide a statement on his behalf but they were afraid to  do  so  for
fear of reprisal.  He asks that the Board take into consideration  the
difficulty of obtaining evidence to support his allegations after  six
years.

Applicant’s complete response, with attachments, is at Exhibit F.

_________________________________________________________________

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.   We  took  notice  of   the
applicant's complete submission in judging the  merits  of  the  case.
However, we did not find  it  sufficient  to  override  the  rationale
expressed by the Air Force office  of  primary  responsibility  (OPR).
The applicant has not provided any statements from the individuals who
had  the  responsibility  for  supervising  him  and  evaluating   his
performance.   Based on the evidence presented, we are  not  persuaded
that his evaluators were unable to render fair and honest  assessments
of his performance, or, that the contested EPRs was based  on  factors
other than his performance.  In view of  the  foregoing,  and  in  the
absence of sufficient evidence to the contrary,  we  adopt  the  OPR’s
rationale and conclude that no basis exists 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-
2007-01531 in Executive Session on 17 Jan 08, under the provisions  of
AFI 36-2603:

      Mr. Michael K. Gallogly, Panel Chair
      Mr. Anthony P. Reardon, Member
      Ms. Janet I. Hassan, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 16 May 07, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPEP, dated 6 Jun 07.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPWB, dated 13 Jun 07.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 13 Jul 07.
    Exhibit F.  Letter, applicant, dated 8 Sep 07, w/atchs.




                                   MICHAEL K. GALLOGLY
                                   Panel Chair