RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 

 

IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2010-04759 

 

 COUNSEL: NONE 

 

 HEARING DESIRED: YES 

 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

 

His enlisted performance report (EPR) closing 19 Dec 07 be 
declared void and removed from his records. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

 

The contested EPR was unjust for the following reasons: 

 

1. Events that occurred in the previous reporting period were 
unjustly considered in the contested EPR. 

 

2. The events at the beginning of the reporting period were 
both brief and disproportionately blamed on him. 

 

3. His decertification from supervisory responsibilities was 
grossly inappropriate and a misleading solution to his attempts 
to seek help. 

 

4. The short duration of his reassignment to the rater, coupled 
with his rater’s nearly complete absence, artificially justified 
the referral report. 

 

5. He sought to improve despite his supervisor’s absence; his 
supervisor seemed to believe his efforts were insufficient, but 
was never around to provide the proper mentoring to ensure his 
success. 

 

6. The supporting documentation from his personal information 
file (PIF) was weak at best and placed in his record under less 
than fair circumstances. 

 

7. The referral comments paint the picture of an NCO that 
failed to meet standards, yet the ratings on the front of the 
form indicate otherwise. 

 

 

 


In support of his request, the applicant provides an expanded 
statement and 21 other attachments which include copies of the 
contested referral EPR, a letter of reprimand (LOR), two letters 
of counseling, various memoranda for record (MFR), documentation 
related to the feedback he was provided during the period in 
question, excerpts of his training records, and two witness 
statements. 

 

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

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 

 

Information extracted from the Military Personnel Data System 
(MilPDS) indicates the applicant is currently serving on active 
duty in the grade of technical sergeant (E-6). 

 

The applicant’s EPR profile since 2001 follows: 

 

 PERIOD ENDING OVERALL EVALUATION 

 

 9 Mar 01 5 

 9 Mar 02 4 

 9 Mar 03 5 

 31 Jul 03 5 

 19 Dec 03 5 

 19 Dec 04 4 

 19 Dec 05 5 

 19 Dec 06 4 

 * 19 Dec 07 3 

 19 Dec 08 4 

 4 Sep 09 5 

 

* - Contested Report 

 

On 20 Dec 07, the contested report was referred to the applicant 
for comments related to his decertification in supervisory core 
tasks and poor interpersonal skills. The applicant acknowledged 
receipt the same day and submitted a three page rebuttal, with 
attachments on 8 Jan 08. 

 

The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are 
contained in the letter prepared by the appropriate office of 
the Air Force, which is attached at Exhibit C. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

AFPC/DPSIDEP recommends denial, indicating there is no evidence 
the contested report is unjust or inaccurate. The applicant 


cites several reasons he believes the contested EPR is unjust. 
He contends that events in the previous reporting period were 
unjustly considered; he received an LOR on 26 Oct 06, two months 
before the start of the contested reporting period, but the 
referral EPR contained no remarks about the LOR. While he also 
indicates he was decertified from supervisory responsibilities 
prior to the beginning of the reporting period, this fact was 
not mentioned in his previous EPR and the steps required to 
recertify the applicant on these tasks were appropriate and 
worthy of mention during the reporting period in question. 
AFI 36-2406, Officer and Enlisted Evaluations, indicates that 
comments regarding events which occurred in a previous reporting 
period should not be included, unless the events add 
significantly to the evaluation report, were not known to and 
considered by the previous evaluators, and were not previously 
reflected in an evaluation report. Additionally, the applicant 
received three LOCs for failure to accomplish his duties, 
missing a mandatory appointment, and missing a mandatory 
formation during the reporting period in question. While he 
provides character references from people he worked with, none 
of these individuals are in the direct rating chain; and the 
most effective evidence that a report is wrong or unjust 
consists of statements from the evaluators who signed the report 
or from others in the rating chain when the report was rendered. 
As for the applicant’s assertion the supporting documents from 
his PIF were weak and placed in his record under less than fair 
circumstances, the initial and mid-term feedback that took place 
during the contested period clearly showed the applicant was not 
performing to standards. The initial feedback was marked down 
the middle and the mid-term feedback was marked with both “Meet” 
and “Does Not Meet” standards indicated in specific areas with 
comments. 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; 
however, the applicant has failed to provide any 
information/support from the rating chain. In the absence of 
such information, official substantiation of error or injustice 
from the Inspector General (IG) or Military Equal Opportunity is 
appropriate, but also not provided in this case. 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 burden of 
proof is on the applicant and he has not substantiated the 
contested report was not rendered in good faith by all 
evaluators based on knowledge available at the time. 

 

A complete copy of the DPSIDEP evaluation is at Exhibit C. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

 

 


APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the 
applicant on 25 Mar 11 for review and comment within 30 days. 
As of this date, no response has been received by this office 
(Exhibit D). 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

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 an 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 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. 

 

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 issues 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-2010-04759 in Executive Session on 27 Sep 11, under 
the provisions of AFI 36-2603: 

 

 , Panel Chair 

 , Member 

 , Member 

 


The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket 
Number BC-2010-04759 was considered: 

 

 Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 15 Dec 10, w/atchs. 

 Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. 

 Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPSIDE, dated 24 Feb 11. 

 Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 25 Mar 11. 

 

 

 

 

 Panel Chair