RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 

IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2011-00179 

 COUNSEL: NONE 

 HEARING DESIRED: YES 

 

 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

 

His Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) with a closeout date of 
24 Apr 09 be voided and removed from his records. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

 

His performance was not accurately evaluated. The EPR in 
question reflects that he was an Equal Opportunity (EO) 
Counselor; however, he was assigned as a Dormitory Manager from 
13 Feb 09 to 9 Oct 09. His dormitory supervisor wrote his Letter 
of Evaluation (LOE) and not MSgt G as stated on record. During 
the period in question, he was given a commander directed 
evaluation although he was not due an evaluation. He believes it 
was a way to deter his chances of applying for Officer Training 
School (OTS). 

 

He received a referral report for being issued a Letter of 
Reprimand for confiding in a co-worker. The LOR he received 
stated it was for unprofessional conduct that led to his removal 
from his office; however, there is no evidence that shows he 
behaved unprofessionally or brought discredit to his office. He 
voiced his unhappiness with the EO office due to experiencing 
personality conflicts and working in a hostile environment. His 
first sergeant told him that he was not in trouble, but needed to 
be moved out of his office only to find himself signing an LOR 
for unspecified incidents; he wrote a rebuttal. He received a 
referral EPR a month later. He was only given an initial 
feedback by his supervisor and believes that had he received 
another feedback he would have been able to improve any problems 
areas. He has always presented himself in a professional manner 
and obeyed the rules and regulation of the Air Force. He notes 
some of his accomplishments during the contested period to show 
that an injustice has occurred. 

 

In support of his request, the applicant provides a personal 
statement, excerpts from his personnel file, and e-mail 
communications. 

 

 

His complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. 


 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 

 

The applicant is currently serving on active duty in the grade of 
staff sergeant. The applicant received a “4” EPR for the 
closeout period of 24 Apr 09. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

AFPC/DPSID recommends denial. DPSID provides two separate 
evaluations in which they state the applicant did appeal through 
the Evaluation Report Appeals Board (ERAB); however, the ERAB 
reviewed the report and was not convinced the original report was 
unjust or wrong and denied his request. 

 

While the applicant states that the NCO who wrote the LOE was not 
his supervisor, he has not provided any information showing that 
TSgt G was not the rater nor was it contested on the referral EPR 
rebuttal. The “rater” is the one who is assigned to write the 
evaluation report and the “supervisor” is the one who is assigned 
to monitor day-to-day activities. 

 

The applicant mentions the EPR does not accurately reflect his 
performance during the reporting period. He states that Under 
Training Requirements, he completed all his upgrade training in a 
timely manner and acquired a college-teaching certificate; 
however, he does not provide a copy of his training record or any 
supporting documents from the rating chain or the training 
manager to verify all training requirements were completed on 
time. 

 

Furthermore, the applicant believes had he received feedback he 
would have been able to improve problem areas; however, if 
feedback was not provided during a reporting period, the lack of 
counseling or feedback, by itself, is not sufficient to challenge 
the accuracy or justness of a report. Evaluators must confirm 
they did not provide counseling or feedback, and that this 
directly results in an unfair evaluation. Specific information 
about the unfair evaluation must be provided in order for the 
board to make a reasoned judgment on the appeal. The instruction 
states that while documented feedback sessions are required, they 
do not replace informal day-to-day feedback. A rater’s failure 
to conduct a required or requested feedback session, or document 
the session on a Performance Feedback Worksheet, will not, 
invalidate any subsequent performance report. 

 

The applicant contends that his rating is untrue, unjust, and was 
motivated by his supervisor out of spite and jealousy for 
attaining a dual Master’s Degree and stemmed out of reprisal for 
filing a discrimination complaint against the EO Director. 


Although he makes these claims, he has not provided any evidence 
that discrimination or reprisal occurred. The applicant does not 
provide any information from the evaluators, an Inspector General 
(IG) or Military Equal Opportunity (MEO) complaint, or any other 
credible officials that can vouch or substantiate an error or 
injustice. 

 

Finally, although the applicant contends that previous EPRs with 
the exception of one were all “5” ratings, after reviewing his 
previous thirteen EPRs, his assertion does not bear out under 
scrutiny; a pattern becomes clear. Although most of the 
evaluations were of a final rating of “5”, all but three had one 
or more markdowns in the rater portion of the evaluation, and 
many of these evaluations had three or more areas marked down on 
each evaluation. 

 

The DPSID complete 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 22 Jul 11 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 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. 

 

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-2011-00179 in Executive Session on 29 Sep 11, under the 
provisions of AFI 36-2603: 

 

 , Panel Chair 

 , Member 

 , Member 

 

The following documentary evidence was considered: 

 

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

 Exhibit B. Letter, AFPC/DPSID, dated 17 Jun 11 and 21 Jul 11. 

 Exhibit C. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 22 Jul 11. 

 

 

 

 

 

 Panel Chair