RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 

IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBERS: BC-2010-01284 

 COUNSEL: NONE 

 HEARING DESIRED: NO 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

 

His Enlisted Performance Report (EPR), for the period 16 December 
2008 through 15 December 2009, be voided and removed from his 
record. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

 

A copy of his referral EPR was not made available to him until he 
received a copy through his Area Defense Counsel. The copy he 
received was missing a date for the performance feedback; 
however, the EPR he signed, and is now a matter of record has a 
Performance Feedback date reflected. Had he received a 
performance feedback, he would have an original Air Force Form 
931, Performance Feedback Worksheet (PFW). In addition, he had 
been removed from the position of Flight Kitchen Manager; 
therefore, the report contains an incorrect duty title and 
duties. 

 

In support of his appeal, the applicant provides copies of a fax 
transmission, memorandums for record (MFRs), a Letter of 
Reprimand (LOR), response to the LOR, a referral EPR with cover 
memorandum, his response to the referral EPR, character 
references, and a Letter of Evaluation. 

 

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

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 

 

According to the military personnel data system, the applicant is 
currently serving on active duty in the grade of technical 
sergeant (E-6) with a date of rank of 1 December 2004. He has a 
Total Active Federal Military Service Date of 21 March 1991 and a 
projected date of separation of 24 April 2011. 

 

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

 

 PERIOD ENDING PROMOTION RECOMMENDATION 

 

 14 Apr 01 (SSgt) 5 

 15 Dec 02 4 

 15 Dec 03 4 

 15 Dec 04 4 

 15 Dec 05 (TSgt) 5 

 15 Dec 06 4 

 18 Sep 07 2 

 15 Dec 08 4 

 15 Dec 09* 2 

 

* Contested report 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

AFPC/DPSIDEP recommends denial. DPSIDEP states the applicant 
filed several appeals through the Evaluation Reports Appeal Board 
(ERAB) under the provisions of Air Force Instruction 36-2401, Correcting Officer and Enlisted Evaluation Reports; however, the 
ERAB was not convinced the contested report was inaccurate or 
unjust and denied relief. The applicant received an LOR and was 
removed from the position of Noncommissioned Officer in Charge 
(NCOIC) of the Flight Kitchen and duties associated with 
Processing Deployment Functions (PDF) line in January 2009. His 
EPR closed out in December 2009. The MFR the applicant provides 
removing him from the position, indicates he was removed as 
NCOIC; it does not indicate Flight Kitchen Manager. However, 
presuming it was the same thing, he has provided no evidence to 
show what his actual duty title was as of the close-out date of 
the contested EPR. His duty title and duties could have changed 
several times between January 2009 and December 2009; and/or he 
could have even been placed back into the position. 

 

DPSIDEP indicates that as for the feedback date, the applicant 
implies the feedback was not accomplished because he did not have 
the original PFW. However, he does not state the feedback was 
not provided. Furthermore, only the rater can confirm whether or 
not feedback was not accomplished. The applicant would have to 
provide a statement from the rater that feedback was not 
accomplished; and even then, DPSIDEP would simply remove the date 
and add the statement “Feedback was not accomplished IAW AFI 36-
2406, paragraph 2.10.” Lack of feedback is not grounds to void a 
report. DPSIDEP will not void a report when the error or 
injustice can be corrected administratively; and in this case, 
all corrective actions requested could be administratively 
corrected with the correct supporting documentation. 

 

DPSIDEP states the applicant has not shown a clear error or 
injustice; however, if he can provide a statement from his 


evaluator that the information is incorrect, they would 
reconsider his request. 

 

The complete DPSIDEP evaluation is at Exhibit B. 

 

AFPC/DPSOE indicates that since DPSIDEP has determined the 
contested referral report is accurate as written; they defer to 
their recommendation. DPSOE states that the first time the 
applicant’s contested report would have been considered in the 
promotion process was cycle 10E7 to master sergeant. However, 
the fact the EPR was a referral rendered him ineligible for 
consideration for promotion in accordance with Air Force 
Instruction 36-2502, Tale 1.1, Rule 22. Should the Board decide 
to remove the report, the applicant would be entitled to 
supplemental promotion consideration beginning with cycle 10E7. 

 

The complete DPSOE evaluation is at Exhibit C. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant 
on 16 July 2010, for review and comment within 30 days. As of this 
date, this office has received no response. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

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 
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. Therefore, in the absence of evidence showing the 
contested report is an inaccurate depiction of his performance 
during the rating period in question, we find no compelling 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-2010-01284 in Executive Session on 18 November 2010, 
under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: 

 

 , Panel Chair 

 , Member 

 , Member 

 

The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket 
Number BC-2010-01284 was considered: 

 

 Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 22 Mar 10, w/atchs. 

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

 Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPSOE, dated 21 Jun 10. 

 Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 16 Jul 10. 

 

 

 

 

 

 Panel Chair