RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 

IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2010-01282 

 COUNSEL: NONE 

 HEARING DESIRED: NO 

 

___________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

 

1. His Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) with a closeout date of 
1 Feb 07 be declared void and removed from his records. 

 

2. He be promoted to master sergeant (E-7) and receive all back pay 
and allowances. 

 

3. He be awarded the Air Force Commendation Medal (Request 
withdrawn by leter of 11 Aug 10). 

 

___________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

 

He believes he received an overall “4” EPR due to being retaliated 
against by his supervisor for not updating the Air Force Fitness 
Management (AFFMS) with a false fitness assessment score. He 
received positive feedback during the reporting period in question 
with little to no room for improvement as annotated on the AF IMT 
931, Performance Feedback Worksheet. His accomplishments during 
the rating period included completing his Bachelor of Science 
degree; a second Associate’s degree; completing the Non-
Commissioned Officer Academy course; and deploying to Iraq where he 
earned an Army Achievement Medal. His past as well as current EPRs 
have all been excellent, with the exception of the contested 
report. His behaviors, actions, and work ethics have been the same 
throughout his career; therefore, he asks for this one EPR to be 
removed from his records. He did not submit this request until now 
because he could not find the email communications regarding the 
specific issues involved that shows retaliation on his supervisors’ 
behalf; he since found the email communications that supports his 
contentions. The EPR has had and will continue to have a negative 
impact on his progression and senior enlisted opportunities in the 
Air Force. 

 

In support of his request, the applicant provides a copy of email 
communications, a copy of his test history, a copy of his rater 
initial/follow-up performance feedback notification, copies of his 
AF IMT 931, copies of his diplomas, a copy of his decoration 
recommendation and citation, copies of his EPRs, a copy of his 
Weighted Airman Promotion System Score Notice, a copy of his Decor 
6, and a copy of his Application for Correction/Removal of 
Evaluation Report. 

 


His 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, having assumed that grade effective and with a 
date of rank of 1 Dec 09. 

 

The applicant was first considered for promotion to master sergeant 
during cycle 08E7. His score was 128.25 and his decoration score 
was 4.00 for a total score of 324.76. The score required for 
promotion during that cycle was 324.89. The applicant missed 
promotion by .13 points. 

 

___________________________________________________________________ 

 

AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

AFPC/DPSIDEP recommends denial. DPSIDEP states the applicant filed 
an appeal with the Evaluation Reports Appeals Board (ERAB); 
however, the ERAB was not convinced the report was inaccurate or 
unjust and denied relief. The applicant believes his supervisor 
retaliated against him for refusing to input an invalidated fitness 
assessment score into the AFFMS. It appears suspicious that the 
applicant’s rater, who had been exempt twice from taking the 
fitness test which seldom happens, asked him to update the fitness 
system with invalidated data; however, there is no documentation to 
verify the rater’s status at the time of the exemptions. Although 
the rater’s actions appear to be questionable, there is no evidence 
of retaliation. The applicant did not provide any evidence to 
support his contention of retaliation. DPSIDEP would like to know 
what actions the applicant took to report the incident; did he 
notify his chain of command? DPSIDEP believes that if the 
applicant felt reprisal he would have addressed the issue to his 
rating chain at the time; not three years later and after missing 
promotion by .13 points. DPSIDEP notes the applicant did not 
provide any information on what action he took to fix the alleged 
reprisal prior to this time. Therefore, they cannot support his 
request. 

 

The DPSIDEP complete evaluation is at Exhibit B. 

 

AFPC/DPSOE does not provide a recommendation. DPSOE addresses the 
promotion issue only. DPSOE states that if only the EPR is removed 
from his records his score would increase to 331.51 and if only the 
AFCM were added his score would increase to 327.76; if either 
occurs the applicant would have been selected for promotion to 
master sergeant. However, IAW the governing regulation, 
supplemental consideration may not be granted if the error or 
omission appeared on the member’s DVR and no corrective or follow-
up action was taken by the member prior to the promotion selection 
date. In this case, the applicant discovered he missed promotion 


by less than .13 points, but did not take corrective action until 
2 Feb 10 which was well after selections were made on 11 Jun 08 and 
released on 26 Jun 08. DPSOE defers to DEPSIDEP regarding the 
removal of the contested report and to DPSIDR regarding the award 
of the AFCM. 

 

The DPSOE complete evaluation is at Exhibit C. 

 

___________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

The applicant responded by withdrawing his request to be awarded 
the AFCM. He responds to the Air Force advisory by stating his 
supervisor worked directly with the commander; first sergeant, and 
operations chief. He believes his chain of command only knew him 
through processing his paperwork and had more trust with his 
supervisor because they personally knew him. He remembers 
informing the operations chief about the situation only to be told 
to retape his supervisor and that it would work itself out. The 
chief stated the supervisor would get in shape and for him not to 
worry. He did not realize he received a “4” EPR until he arrived 
at Ellsworth AFB, SD. The Automated Records Management System 
showed it was updated by AFPC on 19 Jun 07, making it a matter of 
record, and therefore, he could not challenge his chain of command. 
He goes into further detail on what actions he took in his rebuttal 
and reiterates his original contentions. 

 

The applicant’s complete submission, with attachment, is at 
Exihibit 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. Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to 
demonstrate the existence of error or injustice. We note the 
applicant’s assertion that due to his refusal to enter erroneous 
fitness data into the AFFMS at his rater’s request, a personality 
conflict developed, which led to the applicant receiving an unfair 
performance evaluation. However, while the applicant does provide 
documentation that appears to paint his rater in a bad light, he 
has not provided sufficient evidence that shows that the rating he 
received is not a fair assessment of his potential or was based on 
anything other than his actual duty performance. We further note, 
as pointed out by the Air Force office of responsibility that he 
has not provided any support for his request from anyone else in 


his rating chain or that he as least made them aware of the 
problems he was experiencing with the rater. As such, even 
considering his overall performance history, based on the lack of 
corroborating evidence or at least the view of the members of his 
rating chain, we are not persuaded that the requested relief should 
be granted. In addition, since we have determined no basis exists 
to remove the aforementioned EPR, favorable consideration for 
promotion to master sergeant is not warranted. Therefore, in the 
absence of persuasive evidence to the contrary, we find no basis to 
recommend granting the relief sought in this application. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: 

 

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 AFBCMR Docket Number 
BC-2010-01282 in Executive Session on 19 Jan 11, under the 
provisions of AFI 36-2603: 

 

 , Panel Chair 

 , Member 

 , Member 

 

The following documentary evidence was considered: 

 

 Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 30 Mar 10, w/atchs. 

 Exhibit B. Letter, AFPC/DPSIDEP, dated 3 Jun 10. 

 Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPSOE, dated 23 Jun 10. 

 Exhibit D. Letter, Applicant, dated 30 Jul 10. 

 Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 27 Aug 10. 

 Exhibit F. Letter, Applicant, dated 14 Sep 10. 

 

 

 

 Panel Chair