Search Decisions

Decision Text

AF | BCMR | CY2010 | BC-2010-04487
Original file (BC-2010-04487.txt) Auto-classification: Denied
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 

IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2010-04487 

 

 COUNSEL: NONE 

 

 HEARING DESIRED: NO 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

 

Her Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) for the reporting period of 
2 May 2009 through 1 January 2010 be voided. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

 

Her rater was incorrect on the report. She was never given a 
feedback during the reporting period or on the day specified on 
the second page of her EPR. The Embassy Canberra closed on 
12 October 2009 for Columbus Day. At no time did she receive any 
counseling stating that her performance changed from the previous 
EPR rating of “5.” 

 

She believes her Duty Air Force Specialty Code (DAFSC) is 
incorrect and she does not agree with the inconsistencies of the 
“4” rating. She was told by her Senior Enlisted Advisor that her 
rating was a “5” when he reviewed her EPR. The “promote now” 
statement and a rating of “4” is inconsistent with Senior Rater 
endorsement. 

 

In support of her request, the applicant provides a personal 
statement, a copy of the contested report, letters of 
recommendation, correspondence between the applicant and her 
rating chain and other supporting documentation. 

 

The applicant’s 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 master sergeant (E-7), with a date of rank of 1 June 
2007. The following is a resume of her EPR ratings: 

 

 

 

 

 RATING PERIOD PROMOTION RECOMMENDATION 


 

* 1 Jan 10 4 

 1 May 09 5 

 1 May 08 (MSgt) 5 

 8 Apr 07 5 

 7 Sep 06 5 

 7 Sep 05 5 

 1 Apr 04 5 

 14 Sep 03 (TSgt) 5 

 14 Sep 02 5 

 14 Sep 01 (SSgt) 5 

 

* Contested Report 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

AFPC/DPAAS addresses the applicant’s DAFSC. Based on their 
review, the applicant’s DAFSC was 8P100 from 2 June 2008 through 
15 February 2010. 

 

The complete DPAAS evaluation is at Exhibit C. 

 

AFPC/DPSIDEP recommends denial. DPSIDEP notes the applicant filed 
an appeal through the Evaluation Reports Appeals Board (ERAB); 
however, the application was denied. 

 

DPSIDEP states the applicant contends that her rater was incorrect 
on her EPR. However, in her supporting documents, she submits e-
mail traffic discussing and confirming when feedback was 
conducted. Additionally, AFI 36-2401, Correcting Officer and 
Enlisted Evaluation Reports, does not require the designated rater 
to be the immediate supervisor. 

 

The applicant also contends her DAFSC was incorrect on her EPR. A 
review of the Military Personnel Data System (MILPDS), shows the 
applicant’s DAFSC did not change until 16 February 2010, after the 
EPR closed out. 

 

The applicant does not agree with the inconsistencies of the “4” 
rating. AFI 36-2406, Officer and Enlisted Evaluation Systems, 
does not prohibit Senior Rater Endorsement from granting a “4” on 
an EPR. 

 

DPSIDEP states an evaluation report is considered to represent the 
rating chain’s best judgment at the time it is rendered. Only 
strong evidence warrants correction or removal of a performance 
report from an individual’s record. 

 

The complete DPSIDEP evaluation is at Exhibit D. 

 


_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

The applicant contends there are multiple administrative errors 
and this is an injustice because of her medical condition. The 
medical condition was so severe she had to be medically evacuated 
to Tripler Army Medical Center in Hawaii in May 2009. 

 

She also states there was confusion as to if she had a rater 
assigned to her. She was never given a feedback during this 
rating period. The only feedback she was given was in October 
2008, when an AF Form 932, Performance Feedback Worksheet, was 
typed and handed to her. Additionally, the rating “4” is 
inconsistent with Senior Rater endorsement. 

 

She requests that this EPR be voided because it is unjust to 
receive an EPR with an unsubstantied “4” rating while in patient 
status and no rater assigned. 

 

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

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

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. The applicant's 
complete submission was thoroughly reviewed and her contentions 
were duly noted. However, we do not find the applicant’s 
assertions and the documentation presented in support of her 
appeal sufficiently persuasive to override the rationale provided 
by the Air Force offices of primary responsibility (OPRs). The 
OPRs have adequately addressed the applicant’s contentions and we 
agree with their opinions and recommendations. Therefore we adopt 
the rationale expressed as the basis for our decision that the 
applicant has not sustained her burden of having suffered either 
an error or an injustice. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

THE BOARD RECOMMENDS 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-2010-04487 in Executive Session on 9 August 2011 under the 
provisions of AFI 36-2603: 

 

 , Panel Chair 

 , Member 

 , Member 

 

The following documentary evidence for was considered: 

 

 Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 30 Nov 10, w/atchs. 

 Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. 

 Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPAAS, dated 16 Feb 11. 

 Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/DPSIDEP, dated 15 Jun 11. 

 Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 24 Jun 11. 

 Exhibit F. Letter, Applicant’s Response, dated 20 Jul 11. 

 

 

 

 

 

 Panel Chair 

 

 

 

 



Similar Decisions

  • AF | BCMR | CY2010 | BC-2009-02730

    Original file (BC-2009-02730.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit E. _________________________________________________________________ ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION: HQ AFPC/DPSIDEP recommends denial. The complete DPSIDEP evaluation is at Exhibit F. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF THE ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION: A copy of the additional Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 22 Jun 10, for review and comment...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2009 | BC-2008-02015

    Original file (BC-2008-02015.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    During the reporting period in question she received two documented formal feedbacks by two different raters. DPSIDEP further states she has not provided any statements from her evaluators and they cannot confirm whether or not, any other form of feedback or counseling was provided. AFPC/DPSIDEP’s complete evaluation is at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2009 | BC-2009-00541

    Original file (BC-2009-00541.txt) Auto-classification: Approved

    If there was a personality conflict between the applicant and the rater which was of such magnitude the rater could not be objective, the additional rater, or even the first sergeant and commander would have been aware of the situation and would have made any necessary adjustments to the applicant’s EPR; or at least supported the applicant’s appeal request. However, the applicant did not provide any statements from other applicable evaluators. Evaluators must confirm they did not provide...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2009 | BC-2008-02713

    Original file (BC-2008-02713.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    The complete DPSIDEP evaluation, with attachment, is at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 3 October 2008 for review and comment within 30 days. As of this date, this office has received no response. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified that the evidence...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2008 | BC-2007-02672

    Original file (BC-2007-02672.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Evaluation Reports Appeals Board (ERAB) denied her appeal because they were not convinced the report was inaccurate as written. The applicant has not provided any evidence to support her contention of not receiving feedback or being counseled on her shortcomings. The complete AFPC/DPSIDEP evaluation is at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2010 | BC-2010-01284

    Original file (BC-2010-01284.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    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. 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;...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2008 | BC-2007-03499

    Original file (BC-2007-03499.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2007-03499 INDEX CODE: 111.02 XXXXXXX COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: The Board substitute her Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) for the period of 16 December 2002 through 15 December 2003 with a replacement EPR for the same period. Accordingly, we believe the appropriate action to take in...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2010 | BC-2010-00237

    Original file (BC-2010-00237.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: He received an unfair and unjust rating without any documentation and there was no feedback during or before 4 Feb 07 through 3 Feb 08. The Evaluations Reports Appeals Board (ERAB) denied his appeal of the contested report. 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...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2010 | BC-2010-00762

    Original file (BC-2010-00762.txt) Auto-classification: Approved

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2010-00762 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES ________________________________________________________________ THE APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) rendered for the period from 8 February 2008 through 1 October 2008 be changed to reflect the correct inclusive dates, remove duplicate bullet statements, and reflect the correct dates of supervision. She...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2008 | BC-2007-03091

    Original file (BC-2007-03091.DOC) Auto-classification: Denied

    Section III, Evaluation of Performance, contains ratings marked one block to the left by his rater, the squadron commander, and the additional rater, the group commander, for Duty performance and Managerial Skills. If the applicant had provided some supporting documentation that the feedback date was in error, the ERAB would have corrected the report to reflect the accurate date and/or applicable statement versus voiding the report. The applicant provided no evidence to support his claim.