RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 

IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2009-00541 

 COUNSEL: NONE 

 HEARING DESIRED: NO 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

 

His AF IMT 911, Senior Enlisted Performance Report (EPR), 
rendered for the period 14 Aug 05 through 13 Aug 06, be removed 
from his records. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

 

The report was both unfair and unjust. There is evidence to 
support his application under AFI 36-2401, Correcting Officer and 
Enlisted Evaluation Reports, paragraph A1.5.5., Personality 
Conflict; and paragraph A1.5.8., Lack of Counseling or Feedback. 

 

In support of his request, the applicant provides a copy of the 
Evaluation Reports and Appeals Board (ERAB) denial email, and his 
AF IMT 948, Application for Correction/Removal of Evaluation 
Reports, with a Memorandum dated 23 Dec 08, with 15 attachments. 

 

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

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 

 

The applicant is currently serving on active duty in the grade of 
master sergeant (E-7) with a date of rank of 1 Jun 06. He has a 
total active federal military service date of 23 Apr 91. 

 

Applicant’s performance profile follows: 

 

 PERIOD ENDING OVERALL RATING 

 

 22 Dec 98 5 

 22 Dec 99 5 

 22 Dec 00 5 

 22 Dec 01 5 

 22 Dec 02 5 

 22 Dec 03 5 

 13 Aug 04 5 

 13 Aug 05 5 

 * 13 Aug 06 4 

 13 Aug 07 5 


 29 Apr 08 5 

 

* Contested Report 

 

The applicant submitted an appeal to the Evaluation Reports and 
Appeals Board (ERAB) requesting the report be removed from his 
records; however, the ERAB was not convinced the contested report 
was inaccurate or unjust and denied his request. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

HQ AFPC/DPSIDEP recommends denial. DPSIDEP states the evidence 
the applicant provided does not support his claim. With the 
exception of the contested report, Attachments 1 through 7 
contain documents prepared in 2008 by the applicant appealing his 
2006 EPR to his evaluators. Attachment 2 is from the applicant’s 
rater stating she declines to support his request; that the 
report is accurate and just and she stands by her original 
assessment. Attachments 8 through 13 are all character 
statements from coworkers and peers; none of which were in the 
applicant’s rating chain. Attachments 14 through 15 included an 
email where the applicant is requesting feedback, and the 
feedback itself. However, this took place in Jan 07; therefore, 
it has no bearing on the 2006 EPR, since it was outside the 
report period. 

 

Disagreements in the work place are not unusual and, in 
themselves, do not substantiate an evaluator cannot be objective. 
DPSIDEP opines that subordinates are required to abide by their 
superior’s decisions. If there was a personality conflict 
between the applicant and the rater which was of such magnitude 
the rater could not be objective, the additional rater, or even 
the first sergeant and commander would have been aware of the 
situation and would have made any necessary adjustments to the 
applicant’s EPR; or at least supported the applicant’s appeal 
request. However, the applicant did not provide any statements 
from other applicable evaluators. Although the applicant 
provided several statements from coworkers and peers, none of the 
statements substantiate there was a strain in the relationship 
between the applicant and the rater to the point an objective 
evaluation was impossible. None of the testimonials the 
applicant submitted state the evaluators could not be objective 
in their assessment of his duty performance. Nor are the 
statements convincing of their ability to more accurately assess 
the applicant’s performance considering they were not the 
individuals charged with performing this responsibility. 

 

Only members in the rating chain can confirm if counseling was 
provided. While current Air Force policy requires performance 
feedback for personnel, a direct correlation between information 
provided during feedback sessions and the assessments on 
evaluation reports does not necessarily exist, e.g. if after a 


positive feedback session, an evaluator discovers serious 
problems, he or she must record the problems in the evaluation 
report even when it disagrees with the previous feedback. There 
may be occasions when feedback was not provided during a 
reporting period. Lack of counseling or feedback, by itself, is 
not sufficient to challenge the accuracy or justness of a report. 
Evaluators must confirm they did not provide counseling or 
feedback and that this directly resulted in an unfair evaluation; 
and even then HQ AFPC/DPSIDEP would only remove the feedback date 
and add the statement “Feedback not accomplished IAW AFI 
36-2406.” The rater does not state that she never performed 
feedback; only that she no longer has a copy. This does not 
substantiate his claim as the rater is not obligated, once a 
ratee departs, to retain the feedback form itself. 

 

The complete DPSIDEP evaluation is at Exhibit B. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

The applicant reiterates his contentions. He states in most 
cases, the additional rater is not in a position to observe the 
ratee’s daily performance. They generally depend on the 
supervisor to provide an objective report. At the time the EPR 
was written, their Chief position was vacant; therefore, Mr. P. 
was the Acting Chief for the report. His nature, like many 
others in this type of position, is to sign the report and trust 
the supervisor. The commander and first sergeant are even less 
able to observe the situation. In this case, his office was not 
even on base with the commander and first sergeant. The letter 
he submitted from SMSgt S. states that she felt his rater’s 
opinion of him was affected by her close relationship with 
another co-worker. He and his co-worker did not get along at all 
and she was very close friends with his rater. There was 
definitely a perception that their friendship bordered on 
unprofessional and that his rater did not like him. Although 
SMSgt S. was not there during the rating period, she was in his 
rating chain afterwards, and the same things were going on after 
she arrived, which she stated in her letter. 

 

The advisory writer contends the evaluator must confirm he or she 
did not provide counseling or feedback, and that this directly 
resulted in an unfair evaluation. This is not realistic. He 
does not know anyone who would admit to falsifying an official 
document after the fact. 

 

On the EPR used at the time, there was no block for ratee’s 
concurrence that the feedback actually occurred. The new form 
has a block for this, which prevents this type of thing from 
happening. His rater input a date of feedback on the EPR; 
however, there is no evidence the feedback occurred. Although 
the rater is not required to keep a copy of the actual feedback, 
the feedback notices should have been filed in his Personal 


Information File (PIF) until his Permanent Change of Station 
(PCS), separation, or retirement. 

 

Feedback sessions are required for a reason. One reason is to 
let the ratee know what is expected of him or her. If there is 
not a direct correlation between information provided during 
feedback sessions, then feedback would be pointless. 

 

His supervisor asserted she provided him all the necessary 
feedbacks; however, she has no evidence to back up her claim. It 
seems, if the rating was fair and just, she would have little 
concern or problem defending her actions and decisions. Instead 
she simply summarily dismisses his dispute, his allegations, and 
has outright ignored his requests. 

 

The applicant’s response is at Exhibit D. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT: 

 

1. The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by existing 
law or regulations. 

 

2. The application was timely filed. 

 

3. Sufficient relevant evidence has been presented to 
demonstrate the existence of an error or injustice warranting 
favorable action on the applicant’s request. After a thorough 
review of the evidence of record, a majority of the Board 
believes reasonable doubt exists concerning the accuracy and 
fairness of the contested report and this doubt should be 
resolved in favor of the applicant. The Board majority is 
persuaded by the evidence provided that there may have been a 
personality conflict between the applicant and his rater which 
was of such magnitude the rater was unable to objectively assess 
the applicant’s performance. Therefore, in view of the foregoing 
and in an effort to resolve any potential injustice to the 
applicant, the Board majority recommends the records be corrected 
to the extent indicated below. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: 

 

The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force 
relating to APPLICANT be corrected to show that the AF IMT Form 
911, Senior Enlisted Performance Report (MSgt thru CMSgt), 
rendered for the period 14 August 2005 through 13 August 2006 be 
declared void and removed from his records. 

 

_______________________________________________________________ 

 


The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket 
Number BC-2009-00541 in Executive Session on 9 Jun 09, under the 
provisions of AFI 36-2603: 

 

, Panel Chair 

, Member 

, Member 

 

By a majority vote, the Board recommended approval of the 
application. Ms. Holloman voted to deny the applicant’s request 
and elected not to submit a minority report. The following 
documentary evidence was considered: 

 

 Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 9 Feb 09, w/atchs. 

 Exhibit B. Letter, AFPC/DPSIDEP, dated 26 Mar 09. 

 Exhibit C. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 24 Apr 09. 

 

 

 

 

 

 Panel Chair 


 

 

AFBCMR BC-2009-00541 

 

 

 

 

MEMORANDUM FOR THE CHIEF OF STAFF 

 

 Having received and considered the recommendation of the Air Force Board for Correction 
of Military Records and under the authority of Section 1552, Title 10, United States Code (70A Stat 
116), it is directed that: 

 

 The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating to APPLICANT, 
be corrected to show that the AF IMT Form 911, Senior Enlisted Performance Report (MSgt thru 
CMSgt), rendered for the period 14 August 2005 through 13 August 2006 be, and hereby is, declared 
void and removed from his records. 

 

 

 

 

 

 Director 

 Air Force Review Boards Agency