RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

 AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 

IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2011-03198 

 COUNSEL: NONE 

 HEARING DESIRED: NO 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

 

Her AF Form 911, Enlisted Performance Report (MSgt thru CMSgt) 
(EPR) for the period of 21 July 2009 thru 10 May 2010 be removed 
from her records. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

 

1. The EPR contained administrative errors in: 

 

 A. Required number of days of supervision. Administratively 
Corrected. 

 

 B. Dates of provided feedback. 

 

2. Her commander, who was also the Additional Rater, was biased 
against her. 

 

3. She was held to a higher standard than her peers and the 
final report was held until after the departure of the group 
command leadership present during the reporting period. 

 

4. The EPR did not meet the AFI required suspense of being sent 
no later than 60 days after close-out to AFPC/DPPBE. 

 

5. The incoming Group Commander had no knowledge of the 
personality conflict between her and the commander. 

 

In support of her request, the applicant provides a personal 
statement, a copy of her HQ AFPC Evaluation Reports Appeal Board 
(ERAB) decision, copies of EPRs, supporting memorandums and 
related documents. 

 

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

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

 

 

 

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 

 


The applicant is an enlisted member of the Regular Air Force 
currently serving in the grade of Senior Master Sergeant (E-8). 

 

The applicant’s EPR profile as a Senior Noncommissioned Officer 
is listed below: 

 

 PERIOD ENDING OVERALL EVALUATION 

 

 10 May 2011 5B 

 *10 May 2010 4B 

 20 Jul 2009 5B 

 20 Jul 2008 5B 

 20 Jul 2007 5B 

 

*Contested Report 

 

The applicant filed an appeal with the ERAB to remove the 
performance report. The ERAB considered the request, however, 
they were not convinced the report was unjust or wrong, and 
denied the requested relief. 

 

The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application 
extracted from the applicant’s military personnel records are 
contained in the letter prepared by the appropriate Air Force 
office of primary responsibility (Exhibit B). Accordingly there 
is no need to recite these facts in this Record of Proceedings. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

AFPC/DPSID recommends denial. DPSID states there is no evidence 
the report is unjust or inaccurate as rendered. The applicant 
contends the root cause of her receiving a marked down overall 
“4” EPR was due to a personality conflict with her additional 
rater who was also her commander. The applicant claims to have 
been in a horrible work environment, the worst in her Air Force 
career. The applicant does acknowledge she received a Letter of 
Admonishment from her commander for failure to obey and 
disrespect to a senior officer (failure to salute) for an 
incident during the rating period. If the applicant believed 
she was a victim of unfair treatment by her additional rater, 
and any unfair treatment may have negatively influenced the 
report, then it is our contention that she should have initiated 
an Inspector General (IG) or Military Equal Opportunity and 
Treatment (EOT) complaint. The applicant has failed to provide 
any evidence that she pursued any of these actions or provide 
any findings in her favor. In the absence of any evidence of 
unfair treatment or injustice, we find the ratings were given 
fairly and in accordance with all Air Force policies and 
procedures. 

 

Air Force policy is that 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 members of 
the rating chain, not only for support, but also for 
clarification/explanation. The applicant has failed to provide 
any information/support from the rating chain of record on the 
contested EPR. In the absence of information from evaluators, 
official substantiation of error or injustice from the IG or EOT 
is appropriate, but not provided in this case. It appears the 
report was accomplished in direct accordance with applicable 
regulations. 

 

An evaluation report is considered to represent the rating 
chain’s best judgment at the time it is rendered. We contend 
that once a report is accepted for file, only strong evidence to 
the contrary warrants correction or removal from an individual’s 
record. The burden of proof is on the applicant. The applicant 
has not substantiated the contested report was not rendered in 
good faith by all evaluators based on knowledge available at the 
time. 

 

Our research has revealed that the total number of days 
supervised, as claimed on the report is incorrect (the report 
stated 293 total days). The correct number of days supervised, 
after deducting for the applicant’s deployed time was actually 
156 total days. The applicant deployed during this rating 
period and provided a travel voucher to show this fact. The 
total number of days as indicated on the travel voucher that are 
appropriate to deduct from the rating period are 137 days. As a 
result of this finding, AFPC/DPSIDEP has, in accordance with AFI 
36-2406, Officer and Enlisted Evaluation Systems, 
administratively corrected the total number of days on the 
contested report to reflect 156 total days supervised and has 
submitted the corrected report to ARMS for inclusion in the 
applicant’s permanent evaluation record. 

 

The complete AFPC/DPSID evaluation is at Exhibit B. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

The applicant highlights the fact that the attached MSM with 
push note and current EPR illustrate sustained superior 
performance on her part and further demonstrates her work ethic 
since the incident. 

 

The applicant’s complete response w/attachments is at 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. Sufficient relevant evidence has been presented to 
demonstrate the existence of error and injustice. After a 
thorough review of the facts and circumstances of this case, we 
believe the applicant has been the victim of an injustice. We 
note the comments of the Air Force office of primary 
responsibility, indicating the applicant has failed to sustain 
her burden of proof; however, we believe she has raised 
sufficient doubt regarding the equity and accuracy of the 
contested EPR. In this respect, we note the overall rating of 
the contested report represents a significant regression when 
compared to her performance history both prior and subsequent to 
the period under review; and there was no evidence of any 
adverse action or misconduct on the part of the applicant. 
Therefore, in order to preclude the possibility of an injustice 
to the applicant, we believe it is appropriate to resolve any 
doubt in her favor. Accordingly, we recommend her records be 
corrected as indicated below. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: 

 

The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air 
Force relating to APPLICANT be corrected to show that the 
Enlisted Performance Report (MSgt thru CMSgt), AF Form 911, 
rendered for the period 21 July 2009 through 10 May 2010 be 
declared void and removed from her records. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

The following members of the Board considered this application 
BC-2011-03198 in Executive Session on 5 April 2012, under the 
provisions of AFI 36-2603: 

 

 , Chair 

, Member 

 , Member 

 


The following documentary evidence was considered: 

 

 Exhibit A. DD Form 149 dated 12 August 2011, w/atchs. 

 Exhibit B. Letter, AFPC/DPSID, dated 3 November 2011. 

 Exhibit C. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 18 November 2011. 

 Exhibit D. Letter, Applicant, dated 12 December 2011, 

 w/atchs. 

 

 

 

 

 

 Chair