RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 

IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBERS: BC-2011-03471 

COUNSEL: NONE 

 HEARING DESIRED: NO 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

 

1. Her Enlisted Performance Report (EPR), rendered for the period 
1 July 2007 through 30 June 2008, be voided and removed from her 
records. 

 

2. She be considered for promotion to chief master sergeant (E-9) 
through the supplemental promotion process. 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

 

The contested EPR was written based on unfair and prejudicial 
treatment as a result of a personality conflict perpetrated by 
her then rater. The report does not accurately reflect her 
performance during the rating period. Her rater failed to 
consider meaningful information from her operational chain of 
command who directly supervised her day-to-day duties. In 
addition, her rater failed to provide proper feedback during the 
rating period. 

 

In support of her appeal, the applicant provides a personal 
statement; and, copies of the contested EPR, Evaluation Report 
Appeal Board (ERAB) decision, numerous electronic communications, 
Intra-service Support Agreement documentation, proposed EPR 
documentation, Individual Fact Sheet for Chief Master Sergeant 
(11E9) and Senior Master Sergeant (12E8) Promotion Cycles, Resume 
package, several letters of support, Performance Feedback 
Worksheet (PFW), and a Meritorious Service Medal (MSM) 
certificate. 

 

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 (E-8). 

 

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

 

 PERIOD ENDING PROMOTION RECOMMENDATION 

 

 2 Jan 02 (TSgt) 5 

 11 Jun 02 5 

 11 Jun 03 (MSgt) 5 

 14 May 04 5 

 14 May 05 5 

 5 Jan 06 5 

 5 Jan 07 (SMSgt) 5 

 30 Jun 07 5 

 30 Jun 08* 5 

 30 Jun 09 5 

 30 Jun 10 5 

 30 Jun 11 5 

 

* Contested report 

 

On 4 May 2009, the ERAB considered and denied the applicant’s 
request to void and remove her EPR rendered for the period 1 July 
2007 through 30 June 2008. 

 

The remaining relevant facts, extracted from the applicant’s 
military service records, are contained in the evaluation by the 
Air Force office of primary responsibility at Exhibit C. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

AFPC/DPSID recommends denial. DPSID states the applicant 
provides no evidence to substantiate her claim that her rater 
failed to consider her operational command’s performance inputs. 
Furthermore, it is the rating chain’s prerogative to decide what 
to document or not to document on any given report. In regard to 
the applicant’s claim that her rater did not provide her proper 
feedback, while current Air Force policy requires performance 
feedback for personnel, a direct correlation between information 
provided during feedback sessions and the assessments on 
evaluation reports does not necessarily exist. 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 resulted in an unfair evaluation. While documented 
feedback sessions are required by Air Force Instruction (AFI) 36-
2406, 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 PFW, will not, of itself, 
invalidate any subsequent performance report. Furthermore, the 
responsibility for ensuring a feedback session takes place does 
not rest solely with the rater, since the ratee is required to 
notify the rater and, if necessary, the rater’s rater when a 
feedback session is not provided. 


 

The applicant has not provided factual, specific, and substantial 
information from credible officials and is based on firsthand 
observation or knowledge. While other individuals outside the 
rating chain are entitled to their opinions of the applicant’s 
duty performance and the events occurring around the time the 
contested EPR was rendered, DPSID does not believe they were in a 
better position to evaluate the applicant’s duty performance than 
those who were specifically assigned that responsibility. AFI 
36-2406, Attachment 1, paragraph A1.3, indicates 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. However, in this case, statements 
from these evaluators are conspicuously absent. Without the 
benefit of these statements, DPSID can only conclude 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 knowledge available at the 
time. 

 

The complete DPSID evaluation is at Exhibit C. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

After reviewing the Air Force advisory opinion and the governing 
instructions, she realizes that the more appropriate basis for 
her appeal is duty related conflict. While she understands that 
evidence from her rater could assist the Board in determining 
whether there were any personality conflicts, she respectively 
submits that the issue of whether there was a conflict of 
interest in her rating chain is an objective question which can 
be answered with objective evidence. She did attempt to obtain a 
letter from her rater; however, she declined. Two others in her 
rating chain of command have since retired from the military. 
Air Force Instruction 36-2401, Attachment A1.2, lists only three 
requirements for the documentation that should support an appeal: 
credible, relevant, and believable. The documentation she has 
provided satisfies all three of these criteria. The 
documentation includes correspondence documenting duty related 
conflict between her and her rater’s different positions, as well 
as letters from those in the specific position to evaluate her 
during the rating period in question. With her rebuttal, she is 
providing additional documentation to support the conflicts 
arising from her position as a Career Field Manager and her 
position as the Functional Assignments Manager. Although duty 
related conflict is not cited as a common basis for appeal, the 
current evaluation system recognizes that there are positions 
where conflicts arise. The documentation she provided with her 
original submission makes it clear that the requirements of her 
duties as a Personnelist were at odds with her goals as the 


Paralegal Career Field Manager. Not only was her rater 
unfamiliar with the requirements of her duties as a Personnelist, 
she was rated against two individuals performing paralegal duties 
and who were not geographically separated from their rater. The 
failure to rate her against her peers performing the same duties 
resulted in an inequitable stratification scheme. 

 

The applicant’s complete rebuttal, with 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. 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. We note the 
applicant’s contention that she was the victim of duty related 
conflict; however, we find insufficient evidence to void the 
contested report based on this assertion. While she provides 
letters of support from her operational chain of command in an 
attempt to document her claims of unfair treatment, we note that 
she has not provided any letters of support from her 
administrative chain of command that was charged with evaluating 
her performance for the period in question. 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-2011-03471 in Executive Session on 7 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-2011-03471: 

 

Exhibit A. DD Forms 149, dated 26 Aug 11, w/atchs. 

Exhibit B. Letter, AFPC/DPSID, dated 14 Nov 11. 

Exhibit C. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 23 Nov 11. 

Exhibit d. Letter, Applicant, dated 21 Dec 11. 

 

 

 

 

Panel Chair