RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2008-02016
            INDEX CODE:  111.01
      XXXXXXX    COUNSEL:  AMERICAN LEGION
            HEARING DESIRED:  YES

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

1.  The Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) rendered for the  period  20  May
2006 to 12 February 2007 be removed from his records.

2.  He be considered for supplemental promotion  to  the  grade  of  master
sergeant by the 07E7 promotion board.

_______________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

After filing an Inspector General (IG) complaint  against  members  in  his
squadron, he began experiencing a series of mistreatments  resulting  in  a
referral report.

In support of his request, applicant provided  a  chronological  record  of
events, copies of his LOR and EPR.

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

_______________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Information extracted from the Personnel Data  System  (PDS)  reflects  the
applicant is currently serving on active duty in  the  grade  of  technical
sergeant (E-6), having assumed that grade effective and with a date of rank
of 1 June 2005.

The applicant filed a similar request through the ERAB and his request was
denied on 24 January 2008 due to a lack of evidence supporting his
contentions.

The following is a resume of the applicant’s recent EPR profile:

         PERIOD ENDING          OVERALL EVALUATION

      16 July 2007                     5
      12 February 2007                 4 (Contested Report)
      19 May 2006                      5
      31 May 2005                      5




      EPR PROFILE CONTINUED:


      31 May 2004                      5
      4 November 2003                  5

_______________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPSIDEP recommends denial of his request to remove the contested  EPR.
DPSIDEP states contested reports  are  reviewed  to  ensure  there  are  no
administrative or procedural errors or injustices and that  the  documented
information is accurate based on its content.  The ERAB does not  determine
the validity of any  administrative  actions  or  alleged  injustice;  only
whether the administrative  action/injustice  took  place  and  the  reason
purported in the regulation is in  fact  accurate  based  on  the  evidence
provided.  Unfortunately, the applicant received a LOR  for  violating  the
Annotated Code of Maryland which prohibits unauthorized  recording  without
permission of all parties.  Since the applicant received the  LOR  for  the
reason purported in the EPR the content of the report is accurate  and  not
unjust.  In fact, the LOR alone more than justifies the content and ratings
of the contested report. The applicant contends that the referral  EPR  was
the last of a series of reprisal actions for filing an IG complaint against
members of his squadron and flight leadership.  Unfortunately the  evidence
shows he submitted a complaint, however, it does not substantiate his claim
despite the ERAB’s numerous attempts to obtain the final outcome.

The complete DPSIDEP evaluation is at Exhibit B.

AFPC/DPSOE defers  to  the  recommendation  of  DSIDEP  and  addresses  the
supplemental promotion consideration portion of this request.  DPSOE states
the first time the contested report would normally have been considered  in
the promotion process to master sergeant was cycle 07E7.  The fact that the
EPR was a referral report rendered him  ineligible  for  consideration  for
promotion in accordance with AFI-36-2502, Airman Promotion Program.  He was
considered and selected for promotion to master sergeant during cycle 08E7.


The complete DPSOE evaluation is at Exhibit C.

_______________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant’s counsel responded stating the issues raised on his DD  Form
149 reflect the facts needed for equitable review.

The complete response is attached at Exhibit E.

_______________________________________________________________
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 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.   We  do  not  find  his  assertions,  in  and  by   themselves,
sufficiently persuasive in this matter.  Additionally, we are not persuaded
by the evidence provided that the  contested  report  is  not  a  true  and
accurate assessment of his performance and  demonstrated  potential  during
the specified time period or that the comments contained in the report were
in error or contrary to the provisions of the governing instruction.  Since
his  EPR  will  remain,  favorable  consideration  of   his   request   for
supplemental promotion consideration to the grade of master sergeant is not
warranted.  In the  absence  of  evidence  to  the  contrary,  we  find  no
compelling  basis  to  recommend  granting  the  relief  sought   in   this
application.

4.  The applicant's case is adequately documented and it has not been  shown
that a personal appearance with or without counsel will  materially  add  to
our understanding of the issues  involved.  Therefore,  the  request  for  a
hearing is not favorably considered.

_______________________________________________________________

RECOMMENDATION OF THE BOARD:

The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did  not  demonstrate
the existence of 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-2008-
02016 in Executive Session on 24 September 2008 under the provisions of AFI
36-2603:

                 Ms.  Charlene M. Bradley, Panel Chair
                 Mr.  Kurt R. LaFrance, Member
                 Ms.  Debra K. Walker, Member
The following documentary evidence pertaining AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2008-
02016 was considered:

 Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 23 April 2008, w/atchs.
 Exhibit B.  Letter, AFPC/DPSIDEP, dated 15 July 2008.
 Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPSOE, dated 21 July 2008.
 Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 1 August 2008.
 Exhibit E.  Letter, Applicant’s Counsel, dated 2 September 2008.



                                   CHARLENE M. BRADLEY
                                   Panel Chair