RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2007-03262
            INDEX CODE:  111.02
            COUNSEL:  NONE
            HEARING DESIRED:  NO

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

1.  His Enlisted Performance  Report  (EPR)  rendered  for  the  period  9
October 2004 through 8 October 2005, be removed from his records.

2.  His test score for promotion cycle 07E7 be recalculated.

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The EPR in question is not an accurate portrayal of  his  performance  and
does not match or add up to the  rating  he  received,  nor  is  it  valid
because he was not given a chance to respond to the EPR.  The last line in
his rater’s comments state  he  has  the  potential  to  be  an  effective
noncommissioned officer (NCO) leader with the  proper  supervision.   This
EPR is disproportionate to his performance  and  accomplishments.   Before
his permanent change of assignment (PCA) he was not given  any  indication
he was getting a “2” EPR and would be ineligible to  test  for  promotion.
He was informed of the report during his PCA  by  his  new  orderly  room.
When he tried to sign for a test date he learned he was ineligible to test
because he received a referral EPR.  He was not giving the opportunity  to
respond to this report and his records showed no  memorandum  of  referral
paperwork.  His former commander stated he did a great  job;  however,  he
was forced to move him because the other shop was undermanned  and  needed
help.  He believes this report  followed  him  to  his  new  squadron  and
stereotyped him with the higher ranks.  He feels this report is wrong  and
unjust.

In support of his request, the applicant provided a personal statement and
documentation associated with his appeal to the Evaluation Reports  Appeal
Board (ERAB).

His complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.

________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant contracted his initial enlistment in the Regular Air Force on 10
December 1986.  He  has  been  progressively  promoted  to  the  grade  of
technical sergeant, having assumed that grade effective and with a date of
rank of 1 October 2002.

The following is a resume of his recent EPR profile:

      PERIOD ENDING    PROMOTION RECOMMENDATION

            31 December 2002      5
            31 December 2003      5
             8 October 2004       5
             8 October 2005       2(Contested Report)
             8 October 2006       4

________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPSIDEP recommends denial.  DPSIDEP states in accordance  with  (IAW)
AFI 36-2406, Officer and Enlisted Evaluation Systems, paragraph 3.9.1., an
evaluator will refer a report when any block in the far  left  in  section
III is marked; or an overall rating of “1” in section IV; or comments that
are derogatory in nature, that imply or  refer  to  behavior  incompatible
with  or  not  meeting  minimal  acceptable  standards  of   personal   or
professional conduct, character, judgment or  integrity  and/or  refer  to
disciplinary action.  DPSIDEP reviewed the contested report and determined
that  although  the  contested  statement  borders  making  the  report  a
referral,  it  does  not  state  the  applicant  is  not  meeting  minimum
standards, which is the key in determining  whether  or  not  a  statement
would make a report a referral.  Upon initial  review,  DPSIDEP  did  have
concerns regarding the overall promotion recommendation  rating  and  that
the overall comments were fairly positive and really did not  justify  the
overall rating.  However, upon further research and although not mentioned
in the report DPSIDEP found the applicant had actually received an Article
15 for dereliction in the performance of his duties during  the  contested
reporting period.  IAW AFI 36-2406, table 3.2, note 8c,  a  ratee  may  be
performing satisfactorily when compared to others in the  same  Air  Force
Specialty Code (AFSC); however, when considering  all  pertinent  factors,
the  ratee  might  have  less  potential  for   promotion   or   increased
responsibility.  The ratings in section IV  and  comments  should  reflect
this lesser potential.  This office believes the evaluators did just that;
that the evaluators wanted to show there had been some issues  during  the
reporting period without having it following him throughout  the  rest  of
his career by mentioning the Article 15.  DPSIDEP will not void  a  report
that can be corrected.  Although, the  report  is  acceptable  as  is,  to
eliminate any doubt, DPSIDEP  would  only  recommend  and  upon  approval,
direct the report  be  reaccomplished  to  include  a  statement  that  he
received an Article 15 for dereliction of duty, and then refer the  report
to the applicant as required in IAW AFI36-2406, paragraph 3.9.  Since  the
report is acceptable as is, it will be in the applicant's favor to keep it
as is.

The complete DPSIDEP evaluation is at Exhibit C.

AFPC/DPSOE recommends denial.  DPSOE states the fact  that  the  contested
report has an overall rating of “2” rendered the applicant ineligible  for
promotion consideration during cycle 06E7 to master sergeant IAW with  AFI
36-2502, table 1.1., Rule 22. The first time the report was considered  in
the promotion process was cycle 07E7 to master sergeant.  The  applicant's
total score was 322.20 and the score required for selection  in  his  AFSC
was 331.53 (-9.33 points).  He received an EPR score  of  110.02.   Should
the Board  void  this  report  as  requested  providing  he  is  otherwise
eligible; the applicant will become  entitled  to  supplemental  promotion
consideration for the cycle.  He would become a select as  his  EPR  score
would increase to 127.05 (+17.03).

The complete DPSOE evaluation is at Exhibit D.

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on  18
January 2008 for review and comment within 30 days.  As of this date, this
office has received no response.

________________________________________________________________

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  injustice.   We  took  careful  notice  of  the
applicant's complete  submission  in  judging  the  merits  of  the  case;
however, we agree with the opinions and recommendation of  the  Air  Force
offices of primary responsibility and adopt their rationale as  the  basis
for our conclusion that the applicant has failed to sustain his burden  of
proof of the existence of either an error or injustice in this  case.   We
are not persuaded by the evidence provided that the  contested  report  is
erroneous or unjust or that  the  report  was  prepared  contrary  to  the
provisions of the governing instruction.  Therefore,  in  the  absence  of
persuasive evidence to the  contrary,  we  find  no  compelling  basis  to
recommend granting the relief sought in this application.

________________________________________________________________


RECOMMENDATION OF THE BOARD:

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 BC-2007-03262  in  Executive
Session on 27 February 2008, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

                 Mr. Michael J. Maglio, Panel Chair
                 Ms. Dee R. Reardon, Member
                 Ms. Josephine L. Davis, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 24 September 2007, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Letter, AFPC/DPSIDEP, dated 13 November 2007.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPSOE, dated 27 November 2007.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 18 January 2008.




            MICHAEL J. MAGLIO
            Panel Chair