RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

 AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 

IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2010-02256 

 

 COUNSEL: NONE 

 

 HEARING DESIRED: YES 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

THE APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

 

His Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) rendered for the period 
11 January 2007 through 9 November 2007 be removed. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

THE APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

 

His 9 November 2007 EPR is unjust because he was rated above 
average and exceeded standards on his 9 August 2007 performance 
feedback and received no derogatory feedback or documentation 
prior to the closeout of the report. 

 

The contested EPR closed out two months before the annual close-
out date without a change of rating official (CRO) notice being 
generated. In addition, when his annual report came due, his 
original supervisor was still listed on his annual EPR notice, 
clearly indicating that a CRO did not occur. The annual report 
should have been written since he did not officially have a 
permanent change of assignment (PCA) until May 08 and there was 
no CRO paperwork submitted by the recruiting squadron. 

 

He believes he received the “3” rating on the contested report 
because he was medically released from recruiting duty and was 
not rated fairly in comparison to his peers. 

 

In support of his appeal, the applicant provides a personal 
statement; a copy of the contested report; copies of letters of 
support; a copy of the letter from the Life Skills unit, and 
other supporting documents. 

 

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

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 

 

Based on information from the Air Force evaluation, the 
applicant filed an appeal through the ERAB; however, the ERAB 
was not convinced the contested report was inaccurate or unjust. 


 

The applicant’s EPR profile of the last ten reports follows: 

 

 PERIOD ENDING OVERALL RATING 

 

 31 May 01 5 

 31 May 02 5 

 10 Jan 03 5 

 10 Jan 04 5 

 10 Jan 05 5 

 09 Jan 06 5 

 09 Jan 07 5 

 #09 Nov 07 3 

 09 Nov 08 5 

 09 Nov 09 5 

 

# Contested Report 

 

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. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

THE AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

AFPC/DPSID recommends denial. DPSID notes that a performance 
feedback was accomplished on 9 Aug 07 between the rater and the 
applicant. During the feedback the rater stated the applicant’s 
performance was either above average or he clearly exceeded 
expectations. However, the governing directives, state if after 
a performance 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. We 
contend in the absence of any other information, the rater was 
documenting some areas which dropped in performance from when 
the feedback was rendered. 

 

Also, the applicant’s 9 Nov 07 report closed out two months 
prior to the annual evaluation date of 9 Jan 08, making the 
report a CRO. The applicant’s chain of command received a 
letter from the medical group recommending the applicant be 
removed from being a recruiter as soon as possible and placed 
back into his previous job. On 7 Nov 07, the applicant was 
detailed to the maintenance squadron, pending release from the 
recruiting squadron. In accordance with (IAW) the governing 
directive, commanders may deviate from the normal (supervisory) 
rating chain only when necessary to meet grade requirements or 
to accommodate unique organization structures and situations 
where personnel are temporarily loaned or matrixed to other 
activities outside the ratee’s assignment. It appears the 
commander may have agreed to deviate from the rating chain while 
the applicant was detailed to the maintenance squadron causing a 


CRO to be accomplished. However, the request was never updated 
in the Military Personnel Date System (MilPDS), causing an 
invalid EPR notice to be produced and given to the new squadron. 

 

In addition, the applicant contends that he was rated as a “3” 
due to him being medically released from his recruiting duties. 
The governing directive indicates an evaluation report is 
considered to represent the rating chain’s best judgment at the 
time it is rendered. Once a report is accepted for file, only 
strong evidence to the contrary warrants correction or removal 
from an individual’s record. The applicant has not 
substantiated the contested report was not rendered in good 
faith by all evaluators based on knowledge available at the 
time. 

 

The complete AFPC/DPSID evaluation is at Exhibit C. 

 

AFPC/DPSOE recommends denial. The first time the contested 
report was considered in the promotion process was cycle 08E7 to 
master sergeant (MSgt). The applicant’s EPR score was 123.00, 
his total score was 339.66, and the score required for selection 
in his Air Force Specialty Code (AFSC) was 342.23 (-2.57 
points). Should the applicant’s request be granted, providing 
he is otherwise eligible, the applicant will be entitled to 
supplemental promotion consideration for this cycle. His EPR 
score would increase to 135.00 (+12.00 points) and he would 
become a select. As a matter of information, the applicant was 
selected for promotion to MSgt during cycle 09E7 and received a 
date of rank (DOR) of 1 Sep 09. 

 

The complete AFPC/DPSOE evaluation is at Exhibit D. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF THE AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

The applicant requests the Board base their decision on the 
inconsistencies of the rater and the recruiting squadron, not on 
the promotion consideration. The reason for the absence of 
information was that no information was ever conveyed. There 
was no one on one feedback or written feedback to address the 
drop in performance between the formal feedback and the EPR. He 
believes the erroneous EPR was generated out of emotion, not 
necessity. No attempt was made to CRO him to the maintenance 
squadron. Also, the EPR was written using the old EPR form. 
This form does not let the member view the EPR until it is 
officially in his records. The new EPR form was used starting 
1 Jan 08. He questions why the report did not close with the 
original close-out date. He does not believe there was a reason 
to deviate from the rating chain at that time and that the 
squadron just did not want him to see the report before it 
became a matter of record. 

 


In addition, he states that a rater’s standards do not change 
from ratee to ratee; it is his expectations that are different. 
One of his peers had the same rater and rating chain. Both EPRs 
are written by the same rater with the same standards and are 
similar in content. The second bullet on each EPR states that 
he performed at a higher level, yet he received a lower 
performance report. However, based on performance and the same 
standard, he should have received the higher rating. 

 

The applicant’s complete response, with attachments, is at 
Exhibit F. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

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 took notice 
of the applicant's complete submission, including his response 
to the Air Force evaluations, in judging the merits of the case; 
however, in our view, the Air Force offices of primary 
responsibility have adequately addressed the issues presented by 
the applicant and we are in agreement with their opinion and 
recommendation. Therefore, we did not find the evidence 
sufficient to conclude that the applicant was the victim of an 
error or injustice. In view of the above and in the absence of 
evidence to the contrary, we find no basis to recommend granting 
the relief sought in this application. 

 

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(s) 
involved. Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorably 
considered. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: 

 

The applicant be notified the evidence presented did not 
demonstrate the existence of material error or injustice; the 
application was denied without a personal appearance; and 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-2010-02256 in Executive Session on 10 February 2011, 
under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: 

 

The following documentary evidence was considered: 

 

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

 Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. 

 Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPSID, dated 15 Sep 10. 

 Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/DPSOE, dated 1 Oct 10. 

 Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 12 Nov 10. 

 Exhibit F. Letter, Applicant, dated 7 Dec 10, w/atchs. 

 

 

 

 

 Panel Chair