AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

IN THE MATTER OF: 

DOCKET NUMBER:  97-03800 

COUNSEL:  None 

HEARING DESIRED:  No 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

~ 

~~ 

The  Enlisted  Performance  Report  (EPR) rendered  for  the  period 
27 Dec  93 through  26 Dec  94 be  upgraded  from a  “4” rating to a 
“5” rating; or, in the alternative, be declared void and removed 
from his records. 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

No  feedback  session  was  accomplished during  the  rating period. 
Prior to his supervisor‘s permanent change of  station  (PCS), the 
supervisor  provided  him  a  copy  of  the  EPR  which  reflected  an 
overall “5” rating. 

In support  of his  appeal,  the  applicant provided  a  copy  of  the 
contested report and a draft of the report in question. 

Applicant‘s complete submission is attached at Exhibit A. 

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 

The  applicant’s  Total  Active  Federal  Military  Service  Date 
(TAFMSD) is 23 Mar  83.  He  is currently serving  in  the  Regular 
Air Force in the grade of technical sergeant, effective, and with 
a date of rank  (DOR) of 1 Mar 93. 

Applicant‘s  Airman  Performance  Report  (APR)  and  EPR  profile 
follows: 

PERIOD ENDING 

OVERALL EVALUATION 

3 Jan 84 
9  Oct 84 
9 Oct 85 
9  Oct 8 6  
5 Mar 87 
5 Mar 88 
5 Mar 89 

AFBCMR 97-03800 

9 
4  (New rating system) 
5 
5 
5 

14 Jul 89 
30 Apr 90 
30 Apr 91 
30 Apr 92 
26 Dec 92 
26 Dec 93 
*  26 Dec 94 
26 Dec 95 
26 Dec 96 
31 Oct 97 

*  Contested report. 

AIR  FORCE EVALUATION: 

The  Chief,  Inquiries/AFBCMR  Section, AFPC/DPPPAB,  reviewed  this 
application  and  indicated  that  the  first  time  the  contested 
report was considered in the promotion process was cycle 95E7 to 
master  sergeant  (promotions effective Aug  95 -  Jul  96).  Should 
the  Board  either  void  the  EPR  or  upgrade  it,  providing  he  is 
otherwise  eligible,  the  applicant  will  be  entitled  to 
supplemental  promotion  consideration beginning  with  cycle  95E7. 
He  will  not  become  a  selectee during  this cycle or  the  96E7 or 
97E7  cycle.  The  next  cycle  to  master  sergeant  is  98E7  with 
selections approximately 15 May  98.  Should a favorable decision 
be  received  after  1 May  98,  the  applicant  would  also  require 
supplemental  consideration  for  the  98E7  cycle,  provided  he  is 
otherwise eligible. 

A  complete  copy  of  the  Air  Force  evaluation  is  attached  at 
Exhibit C. 
The  Chief,  BCMR  &  SSB  Section,  AFPC/DPPPA,  also  reviewed  this 
application and indicated that, although the applicant provides a 
copy of an unsigned draft EPR that reflects an overall “5“ rating 
with  all  performance  factors  in  Section  I11  (Evaluation  of 
Performance) marked to the right, it appears that the rater later 
changed  his  mind  from  the  time  the  draft  was  prepared  and  the 
time  the  actual  EPR  was  prepared. 
AFI  36-2403,  Section C - 
Terms, states, “EPRs are work copies, and evaluators may  correct 
or redo them until they become a matter of record.  Ratees do not 
review completed reports before they become a matter of record.” 
Contrary  to  the  applicant’s  belief,  the  report  is  not  invalid 
just  because  it  was  changed  prior  to  the  final  report  being 
prepared-it  simply  indicates  the  report  was  revised  to  more 
accurately  reflect  the  evaluators’  assessments. 
In  order  to 
successfully  challenge  the validity of an evaluation report, it 
is  important  to  hear  from  the  evaluators-not  necessarily  for 
support  but  at  least  for  clarification/explanation. 
The 
Without 
applicant  has  not  provided  any  such  documentation. 
benefit  of these statements, DPPPA can only conclude the EPR  is 
accurate  as  written. 
An  evaluation  report  is  considered  to 

2 

AFBCMR 97-03800 

represent  the  rating  chain's  best  judgment  at  the  time  it  is 
rendered.  DPPPA  contends  that,  once  a  report  is  accepted  for 
file, only strong evidence to the contrary warrants correction or 
removal from an individual's  record and the burden of proof is on 
the applicant.  He has not substantiated the contested report was 
not  rendered  in good  faith by  all evaluators based on knowledge 
available at the time. 

Regarding  applicant's  contentions  that  he  received no  feedback 
during  the  rating  period,  AFI  36-2402,  paragraphs  2.8.1.2  and 
2.8.1.3,  states  the  ratee  is  responsible  for  requesting  a 
feedback  session  if  needed  and  notifying  the  rater  and,  if 
necessary,  the  rater's  rater  when  a  required  or  requested 
feedback  session does not  take place.  Regardless, AFI  36-2403, 
paragraph  2-10, states, "A rater's  failure to conduct a required 
or  requested  feedback  session does not  by  itself  invalidate an 
EPR."  Based  on the lack of evidence provided, DPPPA recommends 
denial. 
A complete copy of their evaluation is attached at Exhibit D. 

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

Copies  of  the Air  Force evaluations were  forwarded to applicant 
on  9 Feb  98  for  review  and  response. 
As  of  this  date,  no 
response has been received by this office. 

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT: 

The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by existing 

1. 
law or regulations. 

2.  The application was timely filed. 

3.  Insufficient  relevant  evidence  has  been  presented  to 
demonstrate the existence of probable error or injustice.  After 
a  thorough  review  of  the  evidence  of  record  and  applicant's 
submission, we are not persuaded that the contested report should 
be upgraded  from a "4"  rating to a "5"  rating or that it  should 
be  declared  void  and  removed from his  records.  His  contentions 
are  duly  noted;  however,  we  do  not  find  these  uncorroborated 
assertions,  in  and  by  themselves,  sufficiently  persuasive  to 
override the rationale provided by  the Air  Force.  We  therefore 
agree  with  the  recommendations of  the  Air  Force  and  adopt  the 
rationale  expressed  as  the  basis  for  our  decision  that  the 
applicant  has  failed to sustain his burden  that he  has  suffered 
either  an  error  or  an  injustice. 
Therefore,  we  find  no 
compelling basis to recommend granting the relief sought. 

3 

AFBCMR 97-03800 

THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: 

The  applicant  be  notified  that  the  evidence  presented  did  not 
demonstrate  the  existence  of  probable  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 this application in 
Executive Session on 8 October  1998, under the provisions of Air 
Force Instruction 36-2603: 

Ms. Charlene M.  Bradley, Panel Chair 
Ms. Patricia D. Vestal, Member 
Mr. Joseph G. Diamond, Member 
Mrs. Joyce Earley, Examiner  (without vote) 

The following documentary evidence was considered: 

Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 23 Dec 97, w/atchs. 
Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records. 
Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPWB, dated 15 Jan 98. 
Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPA, dated 30 Jan 98 
Exhibit E.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 9 Feb 98. 

/? (2i22,AdINUUV 
CHARLENE M. BRADLEY  iJ 

Panel Chair 

4 

DEPARTMENT O F  THE AIR  FORCE 

HEADQUARTERS AIR  FORCE  PERSONNEL CENTER 

RANDOLPH AIR  FORCE  BASE TEXAS 

1 5  JAN 1998 

MEMORANDUM FOR AFPCDPPPAB 

AFBCMR 
INTURN 

FROM:  HQ AFPC/DPPPWB 

550 C Street West, Ste 09 
Randolph AFB TX  78 150-47 1 1 

SUBJECT:  Application for Correction of Military Records 

Requested Action.  The applicant is requesting the AFBCMR either void or upgrade his 

Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) closing 26 Dec 94.  We will address the supplemental 
promotion consideration issue should the q u e s t  be approved. 

Reason for Request.  The applicant states there was no feedback accomplished during the 

period of this report. 

- Facts.  See Hq AFPC/DPPPAB Memorandum. 
Discussion.  The first time the contested report was considered in the promotion process 
was cycle 95E7 to MSgt (promotions effective Aug 95 - Jul96).  Should the AFBCMR either 
void the EPR or upgrade it, providing he is otherwise eligible, the applicant will be entitled to 
supplemental promotion consideration beginning with the 95E7 cycle.  He will not become a 
selectee during this cycle or the 96E7 or 97E7 cycles.  The next cycle to MSgt is 98E7 with 
selections approximately 15 May 98.  ShouId a favorabIe decision be received after 1 May 98, he 
would also require supplemental consideration for the 98E7 cycle, provided he is otherwise 
eligible. 

Recommendation.  We defer to the recommendation of Hq AFPC/DPPPAB. 

Chief InquiriedAFBCMR Section 
Enlisted Promotion Branch 

cc: 
SAFMBR 

, , 

’ C  

D-EPARTMENT OF THE AIR  FORCE 

HEADQUARTERS AIR  FORCE P E R S O N N E L  CENTE 

RANDOLPH AIR  FORCE BASE TEXAS 

30 JAN 98 

MEMOWDUM FOR  AFBCMR 
FROM: HQ AFPC/DPPPA 

550 C Street West, Suite 8 
Randolph AFB TX 78150-47 

SUBJECT: AFI 36-2603 Application-Technical Sergeant 

Requested Action.  The applicant requests his 26 Dec 94 enlisted performance report (EPR) 

be upgraded to a “5” or voided in its entirety. 

Basis for Request.  The applicant contends no feedback was accomplished during the rating 

period.  He states that prior to his supervisor’s permanent change of station (PCS), he provided 
him a copy of his EPR which reflected an overall rating of “5.” 

Recommendation. Deny. 

Facts and Comments. 

a.  The application is timely filed.  We have no record of a previous application under 

AFI 36-2401, Correcting Officer and Enlisted Evaluation Reports.  Since the applicant has no 
evaluator support, we did not return the application. 

b.  The governing directive is AFI 36-2403, Enfisted Evaluation System, 15 Jul94. 

c.  The contested EPR is an overall “4” with three of the seven performance factors in 

section 111 marked down one block from the right. 

d.  The applicant contends his supervisor accomplished an EPR prior to his PCS 

departure which reflected a “5” rating.  As support, the applicant provides a copy of an unsigned 
draft EPR that reflects an overall “5”  rating with all performance factors in section III marked to 
the right.  However, it appears the rater changed his mind from the time the draft was prepmd 
and the time the actual EPR was prepared.  AFI 36-2403, Section C - Terms, Attachment 1, 
states, “EPRs are ,work copies, and evahators may correct or redo them until they become a 
do not review completed reports before they become a matter o f  
matter of record.  Rat- 
record.”  Contrary to the applicant’s beliefs, the report is not invalid just because it was changed 
prior to the final report being prepared--it simply indicates the report was revised to more 
accurately reflect the evaluators’ assessments.. 

e.  The applicant contends he received no feedback during the rating period.  AFI 

36-2403, paragraphs 2.8.1.2 and 2.8.1.3,  states the ratee is responsible for requesting a feedback 
session if needed and notifying the rater and, if necessary, the rater’s rater when a required or 
requested feedback session does not take place.  Regardless, AFI 36-2403, paragraph 2-10, 
states,  “A rater’s failure to conduct a required or requested feedback session does not by itself 
invalidate an EPR.” 

f.  Obvious by their absence are statements from the evaluators during the contested 
period.  In order to successfully challenge the validity of an evaluation report, it is important to 
hear fiom the evaluators--not necessarily for support, but at least for clarificatiodexplanation. 
The applicant has not provided any such documentation.  Without benefit of these statements, we 
can only conclude the EPR is acckate as written. 

g.  An evaluation report is considered to represent the rating chain’s best judgment at 
the time it is rendered.  We contend that once a report is accepted for file, only strong evidence to 
the contrary warrants correction or removal from an individual’s record.  The burden of proof is 
on the applicant.  He has not substantiated the contested report was not rendered in good faith by 
all evaluators based on knowledge available at the time. 

Summary.  Based on the lack of evidence provided, we recommend denial. 

&f+ 
OYCE E. HOGAN 
Chief, BCMR and SSB Section 
Directorate of Pers Program Mgt 

cc: 
SAFMIBR