RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 

IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2010-01984 

 COUNSEL: NONE 

 HEARING DESIRED: YES 

 

 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

 

Her Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) for the reporting period 
ending 16 Nov 09 be removed from her records. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

 

1. The contested report reflects multiple untrue and inaccurate 
statements (see her personal memorandum at Exhibit A). She had a 
goal of becoming a Professional Military Education (PME) 
Instructor for over 5 years and finally obtained an instructor 
slot. While attending the Enlisted Professional Military 
Education Instructor Course (EPMEIC) she requested a humanitarian 
reassignment due to her husband not getting transferred with her 
and she believed they would soon be facing a financial hardship. 
At first it looked promising that her husband would transfer to 
McGhee-Tyson, TN, where she would be assigned as an instructor. 
Though, the closer she got to her departure, they realized his 
transfer may not happen. As she prepared to depart for her 
training and their house on the market for over 4 months, she 
addressed her concern with her commander and first sergeant that 
she was worried about facing a financial hardship. She continued 
on her TDY to Gunter Annex for instructor training when she was 
told by her husband that the state of Tennessee put a hiring 
“freeze” on all GS positions. Thereafter, she met with the acting 
first sergeant and dean of the school who told her she needed to 
meet with the chief to find out if the chief would consider her 
request for a humanitarian reassignment due to a financial 
hardship. The chief asked her about her profile for her knee; the 
chief told her that she could push the profile issue and have her 
placed back in the 4N assignment pool. She did not wish to pursue 
the profile because she still had a desire to become an 
instructor. The chief also stated he did not need anything in 
writing, that her verbal word was enough for him only to find out 
the next day the dean drafted a Memorandum for Record (MFR) 
stating she was being removed from the EPMEIC course because she 
“exhibited behaviors of self pity” and was “not consistent with 
what is expected of a professional NCO and is deficient in her 
military bearing and appearance.” The chief also stated that she 
had “expressed that she no longer desires to be an NCO Academy 
Instructor” and that she “lacked the personal excellence and 


maturity necessary and required to fulfill duties and to maintain 
the highest standards of integrity as an 8T000 NCO Academy 
Instructor.” This language is reflected in her EPR. She was then 
given two choices; either file a humanitarian reassignment 
package, or be put back into the 4N assignment pool. She 
requested a humanitarian reassignment; however, her request was 
disapproved. 

 

2. She has never been counseled, either verbally or written, on 
her military bearing and appearance. She never expressed that she 
no longer desired to become an instructor. She believes she did 
what it took in advance in order to not have to file bankruptcy 
and end up in her commander’s office explaining her situation. 

 

3. She will continue to serve as the stellar NCO that she has 
always been; the same NCO who earned “firewall 5s;” and the same 
NCO who earns letters of recommendation and medals throughout her 
career. 

 

In support of her request, the applicant provides a copy of the 
contested report, a copy of the referral documentation w/atchs, a 
copy of the MFR, and copies of letters of recommendation. 

 

Her complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 

 

The applicant is currently serving in the Regular Air Force in the 
grade of technical sergeant (E-6), having been promoted to that 
grade with an effective date and a date of rank of 1 Mar 07. The 
following is a resume of his EPR ratings, commencing with the 
report closing 16 Nov 09: 

 

 

 

 RATING PERIOD PROMOTION RECOMMENDATION 

 

* 16 Nov 09 4 

 20 Apr 09 5 

 30 Apr 08 5 

 30 Apr 07 5 

 30 Apr 06 5 

 30 Apr 05 5 

 

 

* Contested Report 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

 


 

AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

AFPC/DPSID recommends denial. DPSID states the applicant did not 
file an appeal through the Evaluation Reports Appeals Board 
(ERAB); however, the ERAB reviewed the application and recommended 
denial. DPSID notes the applicant’s assertions; however, she 
fails to provide any information from the rating chain on the 
contested report to support her claims. The applicant has not 
substantiated the contested report was not rendered in good faith 
by all evaluators based on knowledge available at the time. DPSID 
acknowledges the applicant’s assertion regarding the lack of 
feedback during the reporting period; nevertheless, according to 
the governing instruction, because feedback may not have been 
accomplished, it by itself is not sufficient to challenge the 
accuracy or justness of a report. In this case, it appears the 
feedback was not accomplished; therefore, DPSID does not recommend 
voiding the EPR, but recommends changing the feedback date to 
reflect N/A, with the following statement “Feedback was not 
accomplished due to administrative oversight.” 

 

The DPSID complete evaluation is at Exhibit C. 

 

AFPC/DPSOE addresses supplemental promotion consideration. DPSOE 
states that if the applicant’s request to remove her EPR from her 
records is granted, she would become eligible for supplemental 
consideration beginning with cycle 10E7. However, DPSOE notes 
that if she meets supplemental consideration it would not serve a 
useful purpose because her total score would not increase 
sufficiently to meet the promotion cutoff score required for 
selection. Her score for cycle 10E7 was 286.50 and the score 
required for selection for promotion to master sergeant was 
325.14. If her EPR is removed she will only gain 6 points, still 
not enough for promotion. 

 

The DPSOE complete evaluation is at Exhibit D. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the 
applicant on 6 Aug 10 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. Sufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate 
the existence of an injustice. After a thorough review of the 
evidence presented, we believe the applicant has established 
reasonable doubt as to whether or not the EPR in question is a 
true and accurate portrayal of her performance and demonstrated 
potential during the reporting period in question. We took note 
of AFPC/DPSID’s recommendation regarding the feedback portion; 
however, we do not believe this to be the appropriate remedy. In 
view of the totality of the circumstances involved, it is 
conceivable that the rating on the report in question was based on 
possible miscommunication and not on the applicant’s performance 
and potential. Furthermore, in looking at the applicant’s overall 
record prior to the contested report, we have some doubt as to 
whether the contested report is accurate as written. 
Consequently, we elect to resolve any doubt in favor of the 
applicant. In view of the foregoing, and in an effort to offset 
any possibility of an injustice, we recommend the EPR be declared 
void and removed from her records. Therefore, we recommend that 
the records be corrected as indicated below. 

 

4. The applicant's case is adequately documented and it has not 
been shown that a personal appearance with or without counsel will 
materially add to our understanding of the issue involved. 
Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorably considered. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: 

 

The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force 
relating to APPLICANT be corrected to show that: 

 

 a. The Enlisted Performance Report (AB thru TSgt), AF Form 
910, rendered for the period 1 May 2009 through 16 November 2009 
be declared void and removed from her records. 

 

 b. It is further directed that he be provided supplemental 
consideration for promotion to the grade of master sergeant (E-7) 
for all appropriate cycles beginning with cycle 98E7. 

 

 c. If AFPC discovers any adverse factors during or subsequent 
to supplemental consideration that are separate and apart, and 
unrelated to the issues involved in this application, that would 
have rendered the individual ineligible for the promotion, such 
information will be documented and presented to the board for a 
final determination on the individual’s qualification for the 
promotion. 


 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket Number 
BC-2010-01984 in Executive Session on 1 Feb 11, under the 
provisions of AFI 36-2603: 

 

 , Chair 

 , Member 

 , Member 

 

All members voted to correct the records, as recommended. The 
following documentary evidence for was considered: 

 

 Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 14 May 10, w/atchs. 

 Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. 

 Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPSID, dated 5 Jul 10. 

 Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/DPSOE, dated 15 Jul 10. 

 Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 6 Aug 10. 

 

 

 

 

 

 Chair