RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 

IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2010-00663 

 COUNSEL: NONE 

 HEARING DESIRED: NO 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

 

1. Her Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) ending 12 December 
2008, be changed to an overall rating of “3” or higher. 

 

2. Her Unfavorable Information File (UIF) be removed from her 
records. 

 

3. Her Letter of Reprimand (LOR) be removed from her record. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

 

She received a Letter of Reprimand (LOR) in September 2008 and 
an UIF in October 2008 for not completing an on-line training 
record by a specific date. These actions resulted in her 
receiving an overall rating of “2” on her EPR. She should not 
have received the LOR because she was unable to register for the 
on-line training. She tried several times to contact the point 
of contact (POC) to register for training; however, because of 
his busy schedule she was unable to resolve the matter. On one 
occasion, the POC specifically told her not to worry about being 
registered because her training folder had been misplaced. 

 

The misplacement of her training folder, which prevented her 
from registering for training, was beyond her control; however, 
she was given a LOR for not completing the task. The 
information in the LOR that stated she was a day-shift worker 
was false because she had been an evening shift worker for six 
months or longer. She was never told if the rebuttal to the LOR 
was accepted or rejected. 

 

In support of her request, the applicant provides a personal 
statement, copies of her DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or 
Discharge from Active Duty and a statement from her Education 
and Training Noncommissioned Officer in charge. 

 

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

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

 

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 


 

The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 12 April 2000 
and was progressively promoted to the grade of staff sergeant. 

 

On 12 December 2008, the applicant was issued a referral EPR 
because she demonstrated a pattern of misconduct and failed to 
meet deployed readiness deadlines. These violations resulted in 
a LOR/UIF being established by the commander. On 12 December 
2008, the applicant acknowledged receipt of the letter of 
notification for the referral EPR and on 22 December 2008, she 
submitted comments on her own behalf. 

 

The applicant did not file an appeal through the Evaluation 
Reports Appeals Board (ERAB) under the provisions of AFI 36-
2401, Correcting Officer and Enlisted Evaluation Reports. 

 

The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application, 
extracted from the applicant’s military records are contained in 
the letters prepared by the appropriate offices of the Air Force 
at Exhibits C, D, and E. 

 

On 2 July 2009, the applicant was honorably discharged in the 
grade of staff sergeant after serving 8 years, 10 months and 
26 days of total active military service. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

AFPC/DPSIMC recommends denial. DPSIMC states that on 8 March 
2010, their office requested that the applicant provide a copy 
of the LOR/UIF to substantiate her claim; however, she failed to 
respond. The applicant believes the LOR/UIF was unjust; however, 
the UIF program is a commander’s program and can be used at 
his/her discretion. 

 

The complete DPSIMC evaluation is at Exhibit C. 

 

AFPC/DPSID recommends denial. DPSID states that the applicant 
contends her overall rating of “2” on her EPR was a result of an 
LOR/UIF; however, she provides no compelling evidence to 
substantiate her claim. Evaluators are charged with assessing 
performance and documenting that performance for a specific 
period of time. Therefore, an evaluation report is considered 
to represent the rating chain’s best judgment at the time it is 
completed. DPSID contends 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. The applicant has not substantiated that the 
contested report was not rendered in good faith by all 
evaluations based on knowledge available at the time. 

 

 

The complete DPSID evaluation is at Exhibit D. 


 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the 
applicant on 30 July 2010 for review and comment within 30 days. 
As of this date, this office has received no response (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 an injustice. After 
thoroughly reviewing all of the evidence provided, we are not 
persuaded the contested report is inaccurate for the period in 
question. Other than her own assertions, we have seen no 
evidence by the applicant that would lead us to believe the 
report is inappropriate, or that the report is technically 
flawed. Therefore, 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 the applicant has not been the victim of an error or 
injustice. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, the 
applicant's request is not favorably considered. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: 

 

The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not 
demonstrate the existence of a 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 Docket Number BC-
2010-00663 in Executive Session on 7 October 2010, under the 
provisions of AFI 36-2603: 

 

 Panel Chair 

 Member 

 Member 


The following documentary evidence pertaining to Docket Number 
BC-2010-00663 was considered: 

 

 Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 5 Feb 10, w/atchs. 

 Exhibit B. Applicant’s Master Personnel Record. 

 Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPSIM, dated 8 Mar 10. 

 Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/DPSIMC, undated. 

 Exhibit E. Letter, AFPC/DPSID, 5 Jul 10. 

 Exhibit F. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 30 July 2010. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 Panel Chair