RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 

IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBERS: BC-2010-04661 

COUNSEL: NONE 

 HEARING DESIRED: YES 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

 

His Enlisted Performance Report (EPR), rendered for the period 
16 May 1995 through 15 May 1996, be voided and removed from his 
records. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

 

The contested EPR was written with malice and included statements 
which prejudiced his reenlistment consideration. The contested 
EPR omitted a wealth of commendable achievements and 
accomplishments during the evaluation period. Mandatory Feedback 
sessions were never afforded to him, even after numerous verbal 
and written requests were submitted to his superiors. A 
statement in his EPR referenced a Letter of Reprimand (LOR) as 
feedback. The LOR was given to him during an ongoing 
investigation which was later determined to be inconclusive. 

 

In support of his appeal, the applicant provides a personal 
statement; a DD Form 293, Application for the Review of Discharge 
from the Armed Force of the United States; numerous memorandums 
for record, letters of support, letters of appreciation, 
character references, and excerpts of EPRs. 

 

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 
served on active duty from 7 June 1983 to 1 November 1996. He 
was progressively promoted to the grade of staff sergeant (E-5) 
effective 1 September 1992. 

 

After receiving three Letters of Reprimand, the applicant 
received a referral EPR for the period 16 May 1995 to 15 May 
1996. The report indicated the applicant did not perform with 
consistency, reliability, or conduct of his grade or seniority; 
and, that he was not recommended for retention or advancement. 


The applicant acknowledged receipt of the referral EPR and 
submitted a statement in his own behalf. 

 

The applicant was honorably released from active duty effective 
1 November 1996 for completion of required active service. He 
served 13 years, 4 months, and 25 days on active duty. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

AFPC/DPSID recommends denial. DPSID states the applicant has not 
proven there was an injustice or error with the contested EPR. 
Air Force policy is that an evaluation report is accurate as 
written when it becomes a matter of record. In order to 
effectively and successfully challenge the validity of an EPR, it 
is necessary to hear from all the members of the rating chain – 
not only for support, but also for clarification or explanation. 
The applicant has failed to provide any information/support from 
the rating chain on the contested EPR. In addition, information 
from the evaluators; or, official substantiation of an error or 
injustice from the Inspector General (IG) or Military Equal 
Opportunity offices would be appropriate; however, not provided 
in this case. It appears the report was accomplished in direct 
accordance with applicable regulations. Only strong evidence to 
the contrary warrants correction or removal from an individual’s 
record. The burden of proof is on the applicant and in this case 
the applicant has not substantiated the contested report was not 
rendered in good faith by all evaluators based on the knowledge 
available at the time. Without statements from the evaluators, 
they can only conclude the EPR is accurate as written. 

 

The applicant contends that performance feedback sessions were 
never afforded to him even after verbal and written requests to 
his superiors. In addition, he mentions that a statement was 
added on his EPR indicating that an LOR sufficed as feedback and 
that another statement was added referencing an LOR was given to 
him during an ongoing investigation. However, the actual 
statement from the rater was “I gave numerous verbal feedback 
sessions and member [was] given three letters of reprimand in 
lieu of other documented feedback [for]: unauthorized absence 
(Sep 95), disrespect to an officer (Jan 66), and unauthorized 
phone calls (infraction Mar 96, LOR issued Jun 96 after 
investigation).” Therefore, it appears that feedback was 
provided to the applicant. The only evidence provided showing 
that feedback was requested by the applicant, was not until the 
contested report closed out. Only members in the rating chain 
can confirm if counseling was provided, whether formal or 
informal, verbal or in writing, and it appears the rater did 
provide the applicant feedback during the reporting period. 
While documented feedback sessions are required, they do not 
replace informal day-to-day feedback in accordance with Air Force 


Instruction 36-2401. The lack of formal feedback is not 
sufficient to challenge the accuracy or justness of a report. 

 

The complete DPSID evaluation is at Exhibit C. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

Air Force policy regarding performance feedback is plain, and the 
supervisor’s failure to follow through with mandatory performance 
feedback sessions is clear. His supervisor clearly failed to 
conduct performance feedback critical to the supervision process. 
To suggest that any casual daily (undocumented) comments 
throughout a rating period can replace policy for three organized 
verbal and documented mandatory feedback sessions is “ludicrous.” 
Furthermore, to suggest a computer generated Letter of Reprimand 
could possibly replace a formal and ongoing process of 
communication is impractical. When a supervisor does not 
communicate his expectations, there is no way for the subordinate 
to measure the supervisor’s satisfaction; therefore, the 
subordinate does not know what to fix. 

 

The applicant’s complete rebuttal, 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 not timely filed; however, it is in the 
interest of justice to excuse the failure to timely file. 

 

3. Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to 
demonstrate the existence of error or injustice. The applicant 
states he believes the contested EPR was written with malice and 
included statements which prejudiced his reenlistment 
consideration. He also indicates that a “wealth of commendable 
achievements” accomplished during the rating period were omitted 
and he was not provided formal performance feedback. We reviewed 
the complete evidence of record, to include the statements of 
support provided to the applicant in his original efforts to 
contest this report. We do not find sufficient evidence to 
support the applicant’s contention the contested EPR was written 
with malice. We note that the statement provided by a former 
commander confirms that he agreed to delay the decision regarding 
the applicant’s reenlistment to allow him the opportunity to 
“resolve his personal problems;” but the statement also confirms 
that the applicant’s supervisors believed the applicant’s 


performance had deteriorated and that the applicant himself 
indicated he was experiencing family problems at the time and was 
receiving professional counseling. Although the applicant 
purports to show that this commander may have viewed his 
reenlistment more favorably, given the commander’s retirement and 
the change of command, there is no way to know for sure. We 
would note that although it appears there may have been 
extenuating circumstances regarding the issues that caused the 
applicant’s report to be downgraded, nevertheless, the facts 
appear to support the basis for the downgrade. Despite the 
applicant’s assertions of unfair treatment, we are not persuaded 
by the evidence before us. Regarding the lack of formal 
feedback, we note the contested report confirms that feedback was 
not accomplished in accordance with AFI 36-2403, but does note 
the applicant received three letters of reprimand and numerous 
verbal feedback sessions and while the applicant does not 
consider this sufficient to make him aware of the standard to be 
met, we would disagree. In our view, these adverse actions 
should have given the applicant some idea of improvements he 
needed to make. Therefore, 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 involved. 
Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorably considered. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

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-2010-04661 in Executive Session on 18 August 2011, 
under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: 

 

 , Panel Chair 

 , Member 

 , Member 

 


The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket 
Number BC-2010-04661 was considered: 

 

Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 7 Dec 10, w/atchs. 

Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. 

Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPSID, dated 26 Mar 11. 

Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 11 May 11. 

Exhibit D. Letter, Applicant, dated 9 Jun 11, w/atchs. 

 

 

 

 

 

 Panel Chair