RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 

IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2011-01820 

 COUNSEL: NONE 

 HEARING DESIRED: NO 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

 

1. His AF Form 911, Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) (MSgt 
thru CMSgt), rendered for the period 21 Jun 08 through 
20 Jun 09 be declared void and removed from his records. 

 

2. He be given supplemental promotion consideration for all 
affected chief master sergeant (CMSgt) promotion cycles. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

 

The EPR was unjust and does not accurately assess his 
performance during the reporting period and the mandatory mid-
term feedback was not accomplished in accordance with AFI 36-
2406, Officer and Enlisted Evaluation Systems. 

 

In support of his request, the applicant provides a personal 
statement, copies of his EPRs, memorandums, and rater’s 
statement of recommendation. 

 

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

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 

 

The applicant is currently serving on active duty in the grade 
of senior master sergeant (SMSgt). 

 

The applicant filed an appeal through the Evaluation Report 
Appeals Board (ERAB) under the provisions of AFI 36-2401, Correcting Officer and Enlisted Evaluation Reports, however, the 
ERAB was not convinced the contested report was inaccurate or 
unjust and disapproved the applicant’s request. 

 

The applicant’s EPR profile as a SMSgt is listed below. 

 

PERIOD ENDING OVERALL EVALUATION 

 

 20 Jun 08 5 

 *20 Jun 09 4 


EPR PROFILE CONTINUED: 

 

 20 Jun 10 5 

 

*Contested Report 

 

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/DPSID recommends denial. DPSID states the applicant has 
not provided any support from his rating chain stating the 
feedback did not occur. Only members in the rating chain can 
confirm if counseling was provided. Moreover, while current Air 
Force policy requires performance feedback for personnel, a 
direct correlation between information provided during the 
feedback sessions and the assessments on evaluation reports does 
not necessarily exist. For example, if after a positive 
feedback session, an evaluator discovers serious problems, he or 
she must record the problem in the evaluation report even when 
it disagrees with the previous feedback. There may be occasions 
when feedback was not provided during a reporting period. 
Furthermore, the lack of counseling or feedback, by itself, is 
not sufficient to challenge the accuracy or justness of a 
report. Evaluators must confirm that they did not provide 
counseling or feedback, and that this directly resulted in an 
unfair evaluation. Specific information was not supplied about 
the unfair evaluation so a reasoned judgment on the appeal could 
have been reached. 

 

The applicant provided a memorandum from the rater on the 
contested report; however, the memorandum from the rater does 
not address any of the allegations that occurred during the 
reporting period and it is actually a support letter to help him 
get selected for employment elsewhere. The applicant provided 
three additional memorandums of support from individuals outside 
the rating chain; however, AFI 36-2401, Correcting Officer and 
Enlisted Evaluation Reports, states the most effective evidence 
consists of statements from the evaluators who signed the report 
or from other individuals in the rating chain when the report 
was signed. While those individuals are entitled to their 
opinions of the applicant’s duty performance and the events 
occurring around the time the EPR was rendered, we do not 
believe they were in a better position to evaluate his duty 
performance than those who were specifically assigned that 
responsibility. Therefore, their opinions are not germane to 
his appeal. 

 

The complete DPSID evaluation is at Exhibit C. 


 

HQ AFPC/DPSOE defers to AFPC/DPSID. DPSOE states the first time 
the applicant’s EPR was to be used in the promotion process was 
cycle 09E9 to CMSgt. However, his record did not meet the board 
due to his non-weighable status (missing top EPR). In order to 
compete for promotion, you have to be eligible and your record 
must be weighable. Supplemental promotion consideration is 
granted on a case-by-case basis. The applicant was considered 
for cycle 09E9 during the Jan 10 senior noncommissioned officer 
(SNCO) Supplemental Evaluation Board and rendered a non-select. 
He then was considered and non-selected for promotion to CMSgt 
during the 10E9 Central SNCO Evaluation Board. His EPR score 
was 128.92 (135 max score); board score was 322.50 (450 max 
score); total promotion score was 575.92, and the score required 
for selection in his Air Force Specialty Code (AFSC) was 619.00. 

 

The applicant did not pursue a change to this EPR through the 
ERAB until 1 Feb 11, well after the boards convened for cycles 
09E9 (Oct 09) and 10E9 (Oct 10). 

 

The complete DPSOE evaluation is at Exhibit D. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the 
applicant on 29 Jul 11 for review and comment within 30 days 
(Exhibit E). As of this date, no response has been received by 
this office. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

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 
careful notice of the applicant's complete submission in judging 
the merits of the case; however, after a thorough review of the 
evidence of record and his submission, we are not persuaded that 
the EPR should be removed from his records. His concerns are 
duly noted; however, we do not find the file as presented 
sufficiently persuasive to override the rationale provided by 
the Air Force offices of primary responsibility (OPRs). The 
Board looked at the endorsements included in the file, and those 
endorsements are not taken lightly. The letters, however, do 
not state what the writers know now that they did not know then. 
The Board does not have all the information right now to assess 
the proper weight to give these after-the-fact endorsements in 


contrast with the real-time EPR. Because of this lack of 
information, we are not persuaded that the contested report is 
not a true and accurate assessment of his performance during the 
specified reporting period or that the rating he received was in 
error or contrary to the provisions of the governing 
instruction. As previously stated by DPSID, 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. As of the date of this Board review, 
the applicant has not provided information/support from his 
rating chain on the contested EPR to explain whether and why 
there was an error and what the correct information or rating 
should have been. If he were to provide such evidence from the 
rater, additional rater or reviewer, we would be willing to 
reconsider his request. 

 

4. Regarding his request for supplemental promotion 
consideration, since we find no error with the contested report, 
no basis exists upon which to direct supplemental promotion 
consideration. Therefore, we agree with the opinions and 
recommendations of the Air Force OPRs and adopt their rationale 
as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant has not been 
the victim of an error or injustice. 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-2011-01820 in Executive Session on 13 Sep 11, under 
the provisions of AFI 36-2603: 

 

 Panel Chair 

 Member 

 Member 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket 
Number BC-2011-01820 was considered: 

 

 Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 5 May 11, w/atchs. 

 Exhibit B. Applicant’s Master Personnel Records. 

 Exhibit C. HQ AFPC/DPSID, Letter, dated 30 Jun 11. 

 Exhibit D. HQ AFPC/DPSOE, Letter, dated 26 Jul 11. 

 Exhibit E. SAF/MRBR, Letter, dated 29 Jul 11. 

 

 

 

 

 PANEL CHAIR