RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

 AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 

IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2011-04618 

 

 COUNSEL: NONE 

 

 HEARING DESIRED: NO 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

 

Her AF Form 911, Enlisted Performance Report (MSgt thru CMSgt) 
(EPR), for the period of 1 July 2007 thru 30 June 2008 be 
removed from her records. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

 

The period of performance on her 2007 and 2008 EPRs reflect 
incorrect periods of supervision as they were both submitted 
four to six months after the respective closeout dates. The 
late submittal dates of these EPRs hindered her promotion 
eligibility to the grade of Senior Master Sergeant, (E-8), 
because her records were late getting to the promotion board. 

 

Even though a feedback date was stated on her 2007 EPR, she did 
not receive any performance feedback from her former rater 
during the two years she worked under her supervision. Her 
supervisor gave her first feedback session approximately 60 days 
prior to the closeout of her 2008 EPR and after they had a 
mutual disagreement on a project. Due to a personality conflict 
between her and her supervisor, the 2008 report incorrectly 
summarizes her performance during the reporting period. 

 

In support of her request, the applicant provides a personal 
statement, a copy of the contested EPR, a copy of her 
AF Form 932, Performance Feedback Worksheet (MSgt thru CMSgt), a 
copy of a package submitted to her commander, with attachments, 
supporting memorandums and emails, and related documents 
extracted from her personnel records. 

 

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

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 

 

The applicant is a former member of the Regular Air Force who 
served from 29 September 1987 to 30 April 2010. She was 
progressively promoted to the rank of Master Sergeant (MSgt), 


(E-7), with Date of Rank and Effective Date of 1 December 2001. 
She was retired from active duty with an honorable 
characterization of service and credited with 22 years, 
7 months, and 2 days of active duty service. 

 

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

 

 PERIOD ENDING OVERALL EVALUATION 

 

 *30 June 2008 4B 

 30 June 2007 5B 

 30 June 2006 5B 

 30 June 2005 5B 

 30 June 2004 5B 

 

*Contested Report 

 

The applicant did not file an appeal through the Evaluation 
Report Appeals Board (ERAB) under the provisions of AFI 36-2406, Correcting Officer and Enlisted Evaluation Reports, due to the 
fact that she is in retired status and no longer authorized to 
file an ERAB appeal. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

AFPC/DPSID recommends denial. DPSID states after a careful 
review of the applicant’s performance record, they are unable to 
find any “incorrect period” as the applicant alleges. They 
observed no gaps in performance reporting, and the contested 
evaluation (which was her final EPR on active duty) began the 
day following the close-out of her prior report. The applicant 
also contends that the late submission of the contested report 
caused her EPR to be late in getting to the evaluation board. 
The applicant has not provided any evidence within her appeal 
that this report did in fact not make it into her promotion 
selection record in time for the promotion evaluation board. 
The applicant further makes the claim that the only feedback she 
received during the rating period was the result of a mutual 
disagreement between herself and her rater. Whether or not this 
was the case is irrelevant, because the rater did in fact 
perform the feedback during the rating period, and duly recorded 
the date on the contested report. The applicant has not 
provided any documentation to prove her assertion that the 
feedback was rendered improperly. The applicant finally alleges 
that she did not receive any feedback from this rater prior to 
this feedback session for a period of almost two years. This 
allegation is also irrelevant, as the following guidance from 
AFI 36-2406 paragraph 2.10. Failure of Rater to Conduct or 
Document a Feedback Session, applies: “While documented 
feedback sessions are required by this Instruction, 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 or (for 
officers) PRF.” They presume that in the absence of any 
documentation to disprove otherwise, the rater did properly 
supervise and provided the proper feedback to the applicant, and 
thus, they do not find this specific allegation to have any 
merit. 

 

In addition, 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 EPR was 
rendered, they do not believe these individuals were in a better 
position to evaluate her duty performance than those who were 
specifically assigned that responsibility. Therefore, their 
opinions are not germane to the applicant’s appeal. 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 Inspector General or Equal Opportunity and 
Treatment is appropriate, but not provided in this case. 
Therefore, although the applicant alludes to an investigation, 
one could not be located to support this claim. It appears the 
report was accomplished in direct accordance with applicable 
regulations. 

 

The complete AFPC/DPSID evaluation is at Exhibit C. 

 

AFPC/DPSOE recommends denial. DPSOE states the contested report 
was used in the promotion cycle. The applicant received an EPR 
score of 128.25 (out of 135.00), a total score of 556.75, and 
the score required for selection in her Air Force Specialty Code 
(AFSC) was 645.41. The 2009 Senior Noncommissioned Officer 
(SNCO) Promotion Evaluation Board convened 2 through 
20 February 2009. The applicant’s EPR was filed into the Master 
Personnel File on 6 January 2009, and was marked with the board 
cycle ID and a selection folder number. This, with the fact 
that the applicant received a board score, verifies that the 
contested EPR was seen by the Board. Had the report not been in 
the applicant’s SNCO selection folder, she would have been 
considered non-weighable, her record would not have met the 
Board, and she would not have received a board score. 

 

DPSOE further states AFPC/DPSID has reviewed the case and found 
the contested report to be accurate as rendered. They therefore 
recommend denial of supplemental promotion consideration. 

 

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 1 March 2012 for review and comment within 30 days 
(Exhibit E). To date, this office has not received a 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. We took notice 
of the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of 
the case; however, we agree with the opinions and 
recommendations of the Air Force offices of primary 
responsibility and adopt their rationale as the basis for our 
conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of an 
error or injustice regarding her request for removal of the EPR 
rendered for the period 1 July 2007 through 30 June 2008 from 
her record. Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the 
contrary, we find no compelling 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 this application 
BC-2011-04618 in Executive Session on 17 July 2012, under the 
provisions of AFI 36-2603: 

 

 

The following documentary evidence was considered: 
, Panel Chair 

, Member 

 , Member 




 

 Exhibit A. DD Form 149 dated 11 November 2011, w/atchs. 

 Exhibit B. Applicant’s Master Personnel Records. 

 Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPSID, dated 24 January 2012. 

 Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/DPSOE, dated 2 February 2012. 

 Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 1 March 2012. 

 

 

 

 

 

 Panel Chair