RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 

IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBERS: BC-2011-02070 

COUNSEL: NONE 

 HEARING DESIRED: NO 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

 

His Enlisted Performance Report (EPR), rendered for the period 
13 March 2007 through 13 November 2008, be voided and removed 
from his permanent record. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

 

He received no counseling or feedback during the rating period in 
question. Also, there was a change of reporting official (CRO) 
action performed two weeks prior to the close-out date of his 
initial report, which in effect backdated the starting date of 
supervision to a date which was not accurate in fact. In 
addition, he was deployed during the time the CRO took place and 
was never provided any proof or notification that it had 
occurred. Finally, there are a number of clerical errors on the 
contested report, which is another reason the report should be 
voided. 

 

In support of his appeal, the applicant provides copies of a CRO 
worksheet, the contested EPR, an EPR appeal, electronic 
communications, and documentation in support of his deployment. 

 

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

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 

 

The applicant is currently a member of the Regular Air Force 
serving in the grade of staff sergeant (E-5). 

 

The following is a resume of the applicant’s EPR profile, since 
2008: 

 

 PERIOD ENDING PROMOTION RECOMMENDATION 

 

 13 Nov 08 (A1C)* 3 

 13 Nov 09 (SrA) 5 

 25 Jul 10 5 

 25 Jul 11 5 

 

* Contested report 


 

The remaining relevant facts, extracted from the applicant’s 
military service records, are contained in the evaluations by the 
Air Force offices of primary responsibility at Exhibits B and C. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

AFPC/DPSID recommends denial. DPSID states the applicant did 
file an appeal through the Evaluation Report Appeals Board (ERAB) 
under the provisions of Air Force Instruction (AFI) 36-2401, Correcting Officer and Enlisted Evaluation Reports; however, the 
ERAB was not convinced the contested report was inaccurate or 
unjust. Whether the applicant had a different rater during the 
rating period other than the rater indicated on the contested 
report, or that any backdating occurred is irrelevant because in 
accordance with AFI 36-2406, 3.2.5, the unit commander or 
appropriate staff officer determines the rating chain for 
assigned personnel based on Air Force policy. In the absence of 
any official substantiation of error or injustice from the 
Inspector General or Military Equal Opportunity and Treatment, 
they presume that any CRO actions taken by the applicant’s chain 
of command were proper and in accordance with Air Force policy 
and procedures. Their office finds that in absence of any 
evidence to prove otherwise that the indicated rater had an 
appropriate number of day’s supervision (262 days) and properly 
rendered the EPR. 

 

In regard to the applicant’s claim that he received a lack of 
feedback or counseling, while documented feedback sessions are 
required by AFI 36-2401, 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 (PFW), will not, of itself, invalidate any 
subsequent performance report. In the applicant’s case, the 
feedback date is clearly annotated on the form, and the applicant 
has not proved, through his submitted evidence that the feedback 
date as recorded did not in fact take place or that no day-to-day 
feedback occurred. In absence of any evidence to the contrary, 
they presume the rater did conduct the feedback as recorded on 
the EPR as well as any needed further counseling and/or feedback; 
therefore, they find the applicant’s allegation to be without 
merit. 

 

In the course of researching the facts in this case, they 
obtained a signed Commander Directed Investigation (CDI), in 
which the investigating officer was tasked to investigate the 
propriety of the contested EPR, as prepared by the applicant’s 
rating chain. The results of the CDI were that the overall “3” 
rating given to the applicant accurately depicted the applicant’s 
duty performance during the rating period. 

 

The applicant notes that the wrong social security number, skill 
level, and number of day’s supervision were placed on the EPR. 


DPSID has administratively corrected the wrong social security 
number and number of day’s supervision; however, the applicant 
has not provided any evidence within his case that would 
substantiate he was occupying a duty position within the unit 
that would reflect a higher skill level than “3P031” as of the 
close-out date of the contested EPR. In absence of any evidence, 
they conclude that “3P031” was the proper Duty Air Force 
Specialty Code (AFSC) for the duty position he was occupying, and 
that it was annotated correctly on the EPR. 

 

It is DPSID’s opinion that the contested EPR is accurate as 
written. Once a report is accepted for file, only strong 
evidence to the contrary warrants correction or removal from an 
individual’s record. 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. 

 

The complete DPSID evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit B. 

 

AFPC/DPSOE defers to the DPSID advisory opinion concerning the 
validity of the contested EPR and note the first time it was 
considered in the promotion process was promotion cycle 10E5 to 
the grade of staff sergeant. The applicant’s EPR score was 
109.42, his total score was 255.92, and the score required for 
selection in his AFSC was 270.00 (-14.08 points). Should the 
Board void the contested report as requested, providing he is 
otherwise eligible, the applicant will be entitled to 
supplemental promotion consideration for promotion cycle 10E5. 
His EPR score would increase to 135.00 (+25.58 points) and he 
would become a select. 

 

As a matter of information, the applicant was selected for 
promotion to staff sergeant during promotion cycle 11E5 with a 
date of rank of 1 December 2011. 

 

The complete DPSOE evaluation is at Exhibit C. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the 
applicant on 29 February 2012 for review and comment within 
30 days (Exhibit D). 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. After reviewing 
all of the evidence provided, we are not persuaded that the 
contested report is an inaccurate depiction of the applicant’s 
performance and demonstrated potential for the period in 
question. In the rating process, each evaluator is required to 
assess a ratee’s performance, honestly and to the best of their 
ability. In judging the merits of this case, we took note of the 
applicant’s assertion that he did not receive counseling or 
feedback. However, we agree with the assessment of AFPC/DPSID 
that he has not presented evidence that the contested EPR was not 
rendered in good faith. With regard to the administrative errors 
identified by the applicant, we note that AFPC/DPSID has 
administratively corrected his Social Security Number and the 
number of days supervised; however, due to the absence of 
evidence to indicate the applicant was occupying a higher skill 
level, the skill level was not changed. We are in agreement with 
their assessment. Therefore, 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-2011-02070 in Executive Session on 28 June 2012, under 
the provisions of AFI 36-2603: 

 

 , Panel Chair 

 , Member 

 , Member 

 


The following documentary evidence was considered in connection 
with AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2011-02070: 

 

 Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 20 May 11, w/atchs. 

 Exhibit B. Letter, AFPC/DPSID, dated 17 Jan 12, w/atchs. 

 Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPSOE, dated 3 Feb 12. 

 Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 29 Feb 12. 

 

 

 

 

 

 Panel Chair