RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 

IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBERS: BC-2010-04017 

COUNSEL: NONE 

 HEARING DESIRED: NO 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

 

Her Enlisted Performance Report (EPR), rendered for the period 
7 November 2007 through 6 November 2008, be removed from her 
record. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

 

Her previous EPRs have been rated “5s” and her previous 
performance feedbacks have all been annotated with “little/no 
improvement,” or “clearly exceeds.” Her feedback, dated 19 May 
2008 noted no issues, and she was not given the opportunity to 
review her EPR closing 6 November 2008. 

 

In support of her appeal, the applicant provides copies of two 
EPRs, two electronic communications, and five Performance 
Feedback Worksheets. 

 

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 in the grade of master sergeant (E-7). 

 

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

 

 PERIOD ENDING PROMOTION RECOMMENDATION 

 

 15 Sep 98 (SSgt) 5 

 15 Sep 99 5 

 15 Sep 00 (TSgt) 5 

 6 Nov 01 5 

 6 Nov 02 5 

 6 Nov 03 5 

 6 Nov 04 (MSgt) 5 

 6 Nov 05 5 


 PERIOD ENDING PROMOTION RECOMMENDATION 

 

 6 Nov 06 5 

 6 Nov 07 5 

 6 Nov 08 * 4 

 

* Contested report 

 

The remaining relevant facts extracted from the applicant service 
records are contained in the evaluation by the Air Force office 
of primary responsibility at Exhibit B. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

AFPC/DPSID recommends denial. DPSID states there is no evidence 
to indicate the contested EPR is unjust or inaccurate. The 
applicant did not file an appeal under the provisions of Air 
Force Instruction (AFI) 36-2401, Correcting Officer and Enlisted 
Evaluation Reports, because she is no longer serving on active 
duty and not authorized. 

 

DPSID states the applicant contends that her EPR closing 
6 November 2008 is inconsistent with her previous ratings. In 
accordance with AFI 36-2401, Attachment 1, Paragraph A1.5.2, 
ratings are not erroneous or unjust because they are inconsistent 
with other ratings received. A report evaluates performance 
during a specific period and reflects performance, conduct, and 
potential at that time, in that position. Therefore, the 
applicant’s past ratings are irrelevant with regard to her 
current rating. 

 

The applicant provides copies of her performance feedback and 
supporting documents but most of them take place outside of the 
rating period in question. The feedback, dated 1 November 2007 
looks as if the date has been altered. In addition, the form is 
marked as a “Mid-term” feedback; however, the reporting period 
started 7 November 2007, so this would have made it an initial 
feedback. The performance feedback, dated 19 May 2008, took 
place almost six months before the close-out of the contested 
report. Their office is unable to conclude what might have taken 
place during that timeframe from the Mid-term feedback and the 
close-out date of the contested EPR. Something of significance 
could have transpired in that six-month gap that resulted in the 
final rating she received. According to an email, provided by 
the applicant, it could be proposed that the rating she received 
might have something to do with what she was going through over 
that year and how the applicant’s attitude had changed for the 
worse while affecting the office. It could even be presumed that 
it may have been because in the rater’s eyes, she was not looking 
out for her people’s careers, being a mentor. The other email 
provided by the applicant indicates her commander agreed that the 


handling of the EPR was unfortunate and regrettable; however, he 
does not state that he disagrees with the overall rating on the 
evaluation 

 

DPSID states that Air Force policy indicates that an evaluation 
report is accurate as written when it becomes a matter of record. 
To effectively challenge an EPR, it is necessary to hear from all 
the members of the rating chain – not only for support, but also 
for clarification/explanation. The applicant states that she was 
not given the opportunity to review her contested report while 
she was on convalescent leave in the area; however, she has not 
provided any evidence to show that these allegations are factual. 

 

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 her performance at the time. 

 

The complete DPSID evaluation is at Exhibit B. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant 
on 25 March 2011, for review and comment within 30 days (Exhibit 
C). 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 office of primary responsibility and adopt its 
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-2010-04017 in Executive Session on 19 July 2011, under 
the provisions of AFI 36-2603: 

 

 , Panel Chair 

 , Member 

 , Member 

 

The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket 
Number BC-2010-04017 was considered: 

 

Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 11 Oct 10, w/atchs. 

Exhibit B. Letter, AFPC/DPDID, dated 24 Feb 11. 

Exhibit C. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 25 Mar 11. 

 

 

 

 

 

 Panel Chair