RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 

IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBERS: BC-2010-02992 

COUNSEL: NONE 

 HEARING DESIRED: NO 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

 

His Enlisted Performance Report (EPR), rendered for the period 
3 April 2009 through 2 April 2010, be voided and removed from his 
records, and, he be allowed to cross-train into a different Air 
Force Specialty Code (AFSC) and continue to serve in the Regular 
Air Force or Air Force Reserve. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

 

His referral EPR should be voided due to mishandling, errors, and 
procedures not properly followed leading up to his referral EPR. 
The referral EPR forced his retirement; costing him possible 
promotion, the possibility of reclassification, and other 
effects. There were discrepancies in the system beyond his 
control which caused his Career Development Course (CDC) books 
not to be issued until a year after he began retraining. He 
completed the training portion; however, he had to wait 18 months 
for a security clearance which delayed his training for another 
18 months. In addition, he only received one feedback session 
while at his duty station at Davis-Monthan Air Force Base. He 
also had motion sickness while flying and severe allergies ever 
since arriving in Arizona. 

 

In support of his appeal, the applicant provides a personal 
statement; a copy of his referral EPR; copies of his Air Force 
Forms 8, Certificate of Aircrew Qualification, with continuation 
sheets; a Commander’s Conditional Release; an electronic 
communication; an Education/Training Report; and a memorandum for 
record. 

 

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

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 

 

The applicant is a former member of the Regular Air Force who 
retired effective 1 February 2011 in the grade of technical 
sergeant (E-6). 

 

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

 

 PERIOD ENDING PROMOTION RECOMMENDATION 

 

 24 Jun 96 (SrA) 3 

 1 May 97 4 

 1 May 98 4 

 1 May 99 4 

 1 May 00 (SSgt) 5 

 16 Feb 01 5 

 16 Feb 02 4 

 16 Jun 02 4 

 16 Jun 03 (Referral) 3 

 16 Jun 04 3 

 14 Jan 05 4 

 14 Jan 06 (TSgt) 5 

 13 Jul 06 5 

 2 Apr 09 Education/Training Report 

 2 Apr 10 (Referral)* 3 

 

* Contested report 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

AFPC/DPSID recommends denial. DPSID states there is no evidence 
to indicate the contested EPR is unjust or inaccurate. The 
applicant cross-trained into a new career field and during this 
process there appeared to be some discrepancies and a setback 
during the retraining process. Although the applicant finished 
the academic portion first, his process was delayed for 18 months 
waiting on his security clearance. This caused him to restart 
his training and to wait another year before his CDCs were 
issued. The applicant believes that since these errors fell 
during the testing cycle, it affected his scores during promotion 
testing. 

 

DPSID states the applicant first contends the comment in the 
contested EPR in Section III, Block 1: “Sent home from AOR early 
due to unsafe performance of primary duty -- left vital 
deployment manning position,” was made because the rater believed 
the applicant to be unsafe in the performance of his primary 
duties. This incident caused the applicant to be disqualified 
from his career field, but there were other incidents where he 
failed to comply with the requirements of his duties. The second 
contested comment in Section III, Block 2: “Displayed disgruntled 
attitude when tasked to perform duties over a weekend -– argued 
w/ldrship prior to task.” The applicant contends he was never 
told of this perception of the incident in question. He does 
admit that he questioned why he was tasked for both days as the 
supervising Non-Commissioned Officer (NCO) of Extra Duty Flight, 
when he was under the impression that it was split between two 
NCOs. The applicant believes his third contested comment in 


Section III, Block 4: “Failed to maintain aircrew qualification; 
received second “Q3” within one year timeframe – removed from 
training,” does not fully address the events that led to the 
disqualification and discounts anything else he did in his job. 

 

DPSID indicates the applicant failed to provide supporting 
documentation to prove his accusations. 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 a member’s record. The applicant has not substantiated the 
contested report was not rendered in good faith by all evaluators 
based on the knowledge of his performance at the time. 

 

The applicant also contends he only received one feedback which 
was conducted approximately back in April 2009; however, the EPR 
has a date of 30 December 2009. He believes if he had been made 
aware of these weaknesses, he could have worked with his 
supervisor to devise an aggressive training plan to address and 
overcome any deficiencies that were identified in his performance 
reports. However, the lack of feedback or counseling, by itself, 
is not sufficient justification to challenge the accuracy or 
justness of a report. Evaluators must confirm that they did not 
provide counseling or feedback, and that it directly resulted in 
a fair evaluation. 

 

The complete DPSID evaluation is at Exhibit C. 

 

AFPC/DPSOE recommends denial. DPSOE states the fact the 
applicant received a referral report for the period 3 April 2009 
through 2 April 2010, rendered him ineligible for promotion 
consideration in accordance with Air Force Instruction 36-2502, 
Table 1.1, Rule 22. Should the Board decide to remove the 
contested report, the applicant would be entitled to supplemental 
promotion consideration beginning with cycle 10E7. 

 

The complete DPSOE evaluation is at Exhibit D. 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant 
on 12 November 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 error or injustice. We took notice 
of the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of 
the case; however, we agree with the opinion and recommendation 
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 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-2010-02992 in Executive Session on 28 April 2011, under 
the provisions of AFI 36-2603: 

 

 , Panel Chair 

 , Member 

 , Member 

 

The following documentary evidence was considered in connection 
with AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2010-02992: 

 

 Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 6 Aug 10, w/atchs. 

 Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. 

 Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPSID, dated 4 Oct 10. 

 Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/DPSOE, dated 19 Oct 10. 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 Panel Chair