RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 

IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2011-02715 

 COUNSEL: NONE 

 HEARING DESIRED: NO 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

 

His Air Force Form 911, Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) (MSgt 
thru CMSgt) rendered for the period 30 September 2009 through 
29 September 2010, be amended in Section VII (Reviewer’s 
Comments), line 3, to reflect his enlisted stratification of “#3 
of 105 master sergeants.” 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

 

On or about 16 Mar 11, Lieutenant Colonel V informed him there 
was a clerical error on his 2010 EPR that required correction. 
Lieutenant Colonel V stated “Major General M had stratified him 
#3 of 105 MSgts within the National Reconnaissance Organization 
(NRO) for 2010” and he needed to work with the personnel section 
in the NRO to get the EPR corrected. After several months of 
working with the personnel section, he was informed the 
Evaluation Report Appeals Board (ERAB) was not convinced the 
contested report was inaccurate or unjust and disapproved his 
request. 

 

He disagrees with the decision of the ERAB and AFI 36-2401, Correcting Officer and Enlisted Evaluation Reports to deny his 
request. AFI 36-2401, paragraph A1.5., indicates “a report is 
not erroneous or unfair because of a missing stratification 
statement due to the fact the stratification is not required on 
enlisted reports.” While, he fully supports the rationale for 
not allowing corrections to EPRs for certain reasons. However, 
over the last few years senior enlisted promotions have become 
more competitive and the level of stratification has become a 
contributing factor in consideration for promotion and for 
career progression. Every year, chief master sergeants (CMSgts) 
from all levels (unit, squadron, group and wing) convene boards 
to review and make recommendations to their respective 
commanders to rate their top senior noncommissioned officers 
(SNCOs) amongst their peers. The process is very tedious and 
time consuming. However, senior enlisted and officers know the 
importance of stratification for their “top enlisted performers” 
and therefore, take the time to acknowledge their 
accomplishments and future leadership potential. 

 

He is the victim of an error and it would be unjust not to make 
the requested change to his EPR. The stratification was omitted 


through no fault of his own, but from an oversight during the 
EPR review process, as stated by Major General M. At no time 
did he, his supervisor, or anyone in his chain of command know 
the stratification had been omitted from his EPR. 
Unfortunately, it was not discovered until after the EPR was 
signed, placed in his official military record, and reviewed 
during the 2011E8 promotion board. Had the error been 
discovered prior to signing of the EPR, he would not have signed 
the report until the correction was made. 

 

The error not only had promotion implications for the 
2011E8 promotion cycle but will impact every promotion cycle for 
the rest of his military career. 

 

In support of his request, the applicant provides a personal 
statement, copies of the contested and corrected EPRs, 
memorandums and other documentation in support of his 
application. 

 

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 master sergeant (MSgt). 

 

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: 

 

HQ AFPC/DPSID recommends denial. The applicant provided a 
substitute report, signed by all of the original rating chain, 
as well as a justification memorandum from his reviewer Major 
General M. In addition, the applicant provided a letter from 
Lieutenant Colonel V, who while not in his rating chain, states 
he was involved in the administrative process of helping to 
provide stratification recommendations to Major General M. 

 

After a careful review of the supporting documents, it appears 
the discovery occurred only after the applicant was notified of 
his non-selection for promotion to the rank of SMSgt by the 
2011E8 promotion board. General M’s evaluation appeal statement 
states “shortly after the SMSgt promotion release on 10 Mar 11, 
my command chief conducted a records review and counseling 
session with the applicant and it was noted that information 
(stratification) was not documented on his EPR.” The applicant 
states in his memorandum that he was informed by Lieutenant 


Colonel V that there was a clerical error on his 2010 EPR that 
needed to be corrected. Lieutenant Colonel V, according to the 
applicant stated “Major General M had stratified you as the #3 
of 105 MSgts in the NRO for 2010.” The question that 
immediately comes to mind is that in any organization, 
especially a large organization such as the Air Force Space 
Command Element, how likely is it that no one at multiple levels 
of responsibility had any visibility or awareness of the 
stratification procedures and allowed someone who was in the top 
3 of 105 MSgts to have a report finalized without including this 
stratification. Major General M. claims in her statement that 
this occurred due to an administrative error”, but does not 
elaborate on how or why the administrative error occurred. 

 

AFI 36-2401, paragraph A1.5.1., states the following: “Impact on 
Promotion Career Opportunity”. A report is not erroneous or 
unfair because the applicant believes it contributed to a non-
selection for promotion or may impact future promotion on career 
opportunities. The board recognizes that non-selection for 
promotion is, for many, a traumatic event, and the desire to 
overturn that non-selection is powerful motivation to appeal. 
However, the board is careful to keep the promotion and 
evaluation issues separate, and to focus on the evaluation 
report only. The simple willingness by evaluators to upgrade, 
rewrite, or void a report is not a valid basis for doing so. 
For example, requests to add optional statements (such as PME, 
job/command “push” recommendation, or stratification) to an 
evaluation report or promotion recommendation form (PRF) will 
normally not form the basis for a successful appeal. The 
applicant must prove the report is erroneous or unjust based on 
its content.” The applicant nor the Reviewer has provided any 
evidence that the report was inaccurate of erroneous, based on 
its content. 

 

Additionally, the applicant states “however, over the last 
several years, senior enlisted promotions have become 
competitive, and the level of stratification has become a 
contributing factor in consideration for promotion.” He also 
states “however, our senior enlisted and officers know the 
importance stratification for their top enlisted performers.” 
The applicant, being a SNCO himself would well know this fact, 
and it seems hard to believe that he would not have been 
notified of this previously agreed upon stratification on 
himself, since it had already been established by Lieutenant 
Colonel V that it was Major General M’s wish that the applicant 
receive this stratification. In any case, as previously 
mentioned, pushes for stratification are not mandatory, and 
their exclusion does not constitute an injustice, nor make the 
report inaccurate. As such, the willingness of the reviewer to 
change the EPR after the fact should not provide the basis for 
successfully appealing to substitute the contested report, as 
nor error or injustice has occurred in this case. 

 


We contend that once a report is accepted for file, only strong 
evidence of an error or injustice warrants correction or removal 
from an individual’s record. The burden of proof is on the 
applicant and in this case we contend the applicant has failed 
to substantiate an error or injustice has occurred on the 
contested evaluation and that all reasonable attempts were made 
prior to the selection board by both the rating chain and 
applicant. 

 

The complete DPSID evaluation is at Exhibit C. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

A copy of the Air Force evaluations was forwarded to the 
applicant on 2 Sep 11 for review and comment within 30 days 
(Exhibit D). 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. Sufficient relevant evidence has been presented to 
demonstrate the existence of an error or injustice. We note the 
comments of the Air Force office of primary responsibility; 
however, after a thorough review of the evidence of record and 
his submission, we believe the applicant has established 
reasonable doubt as to whether or not the EPR in question is a 
true and accurate portrayal of his performance and demonstrated 
potential during the period in question. In view of the letter 
of clarification/support from the senior rater stating that due 
to an administrative oversight a stratification statement was 
omitted on the applicant’s EPR closing 29 September 2010, we 
recommend that his record be corrected as indicated below. In 
addition, since the contested report was a matter of record when 
he was considered for promotion during cycle 11E8, we also 
recommend that he be provided supplemental consideration for 
promotion to the grade of senior master sergeant (E-8) for all 
appropriate cycles beginning with this cycle. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: 

 

The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Fore 
relating to the APPLICANT be corrected to show that: 

 


 a. The AF Form 911, Enlisted Performance Report (MSgt thru 
CMSgt) rendered for the period 30 September 2009 through 29 
September 2010, be and hereby is declared void and removed from 
his records. 

 

 b. The attached AF Form 911, Enlisted Performance Report 
(MSgt thru CMSgt) rendered for the period 30 September 2009 
through 29 September 2010, be inserted in his Senior 
Noncommissioned Officer Selection Folder in its proper sequence. 

 

It is further recommended that he be provided supplemental 
consideration for promotion to the grade of senior master 
sergeant (E-8) for all appropriate cycles beginning with cycle 
11E8. 

 

If AFPC discovers any adverse factors during or subsequent to 
supplemental consideration that are separate and apart, and 
unrelated to the issues involved in this application, that would 
have rendered the applicant ineligible for the promotion, such 
information will be documented and presented to the board for a 
final determination on the individual's qualification for the 
promotion. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket 
Number BC-2011-02715 in Executive Session on 16 Feb 12, under 
the provisions of AFI 36-2603: 

 

 Panel Chair. 

 Member 

 Member 

 

The following documentary evidence was considered: 

 

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

 Exhibit B. HQ AFPC/DPSID, Letter, dated 22 Aug 11. 

 Exhibit C. SAF/MRBR, Letter, dated 2 Sep 11. 

 

 

 

 

 

 Panel Chair