RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 

IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2011-04746 

 COUNSEL: 

 HEARING DESIRED: YES 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

 

The Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) rendered for the period 
17 Jan 2010 through 27 Oct 2010, be declared void. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

 

He was not given an initial or midterm feedback. Once the 
reporting period ended, his supervisor gave him an EPR with a 
closeout date of 27 Oct 2010. On that same day he also gave him 
an initial and midterm feedback. His rater did this in an 
attempt to "cover his tracks," and thus ensure that a feedback 
date was technically given and recorded on the EPR during the 
inclusive period of the report. 

 

In support of his request, the applicant provides memorandums 
from his first sergeant and rater, a memorandum to his first 
sergeant and Chief Enlisted Manager, his Application for 
Correction/Removal of Evaluation Reports, the Final decision 
from the Evaluations Report and Appeal Board (ERAB), his 
Performance Report Rebuttal, and AF Forms 931, Performance 
Feedback Worksheet (AB thru TSgt). 

 

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

 

______________________________________________________________ 

 

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 

 

The applicant is currently serving in the Regular Air Force in 
the grade of staff sergeant (SSgt, E-5), having assumed the 
grade effective with a date of rank of 1 Apr 2006. 

 


 

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

 

Period Ending OVERALL EVALUATION 

 

 20 Apr 2003 5 

 20 Apr 2004 5 

 16 Jan 2005 5 

 16 Jan 2006 5 

 16 Jan 2007 4 

 16 Jan 2008 5 

 16 Jan 2009 5 

 16 Jan 2010 5 

* 27 May 2010 4 

 31 May 2011 4 

 

*Contested Report 

 

The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are 
described in the letters prepared by the Air Force offices of 
primary responsibility, at Exhibits C and D. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

HQ AFPC/DPSOE defers to the recommendation of HQ AFPC/DPSID 
concerning the validity of the report. However, they will 
address the supplemental promotion issue should the Board grant 
the request. 

 

The first time the contested report was used in the promotion 
process was cycle 11E6. The applicant's EPR score was 125.40, 
his total score was 305.21, and the score required for selection 
in his AFSC was 305.67. Should the Board remove the report, it 
would increase the EPR score to 130.27 and his total score to 
310.08, rendering him a technical sergeant (TSgt, E-6) select. 

 

The selection date for cycle 11E6 was 6 Jun 2011, with a public 
release date of 23 Jun 2011. The applicant did not file an 
appeal through the ERAB process until 27 Jul 2011. Since the 
close out date of the contested report was approximately eight 
months before selections were publicly announced, the applicant 
had ample opportunity to take corrective action. However, he did 
not do so until after he found out he had missed selection by 
less than one half of a point. 

 

The complete AFPC/DPSID evaluation is at Exhibit C. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

HQ AFPC/DPSID recommends denial of the applicant's request to 
remove the contested report. DPSID states, there is no evidence 
to show that the report is unjust or inaccurate as rendered. 

 


The applicant did file an appeal through the ERAB under the 
provisions of AFI 36-2401, Correcting Officer and Enlisted 
Evaluation Reports. However, the ERAB reviewed this application 
and was not convinced the contested report was inaccurate and 
unjust. 

 

The applicant contends that he was given an initial and formal 
feedback by his rater the same date that the EPR closed out on 
27 Oct 2010. The applicant contends that his rater did this in 
an attempt to "cover his tracks," and thus ensure that a feedback 
date was technically given and recorded on the EPR during the 
inclusive period of the report. 

 

Air Force policy requires an initial feedback within 60 days of 
starting supervision and a midterm feedback approximately at the 
halfway point between the initial feedback and the close-out date 
of the report. 

 

When a required feedback does not take place, in accordance with 
AFI 36-2406, Officer and Enlisted Evaluation Systems, it is the 
ratee's responsibility to notify the rater, and if necessary the 
rater's rater, when a required or requested feedback did not take 
place. In this case, according to his first sergeant, the 
applicant did attempt multiple times to request a feedback; 
however, the rater did not provide formal feedback until the 
close-out date of the report, and informed the applicant that 
this feedback session would cover all mandated feedbacks in one 
session. 

 

In accordance with AFI 36-2406, the lack of counseling or 
feedback, by itself, is not sufficient justification to challenge 
the accuracy or justness of a report. In order to effectively 
and successfully challenge the validity of an EPR, it is 
necessary to hear from all the members of the rating chain-not 
only for support, but also for clarification or explanation. The 
applicant has failed to provide any information/support from the 
rating chain on the contested EPR. In the absence of information 
from evaluators, official substantiation of error or injustice 
from the Inspector General (IG) or Military Equal Opportunity 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. 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. He has not substantiated 
the contested report was not rendered in good faith by all 
evaluators based on knowledge available at the time. 

 

The complete AFPC/DPSID evaluation is at Exhibit D. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 


 

On 23 Mar 2012, copies of the Air Force evaluations were 
forwarded to the applicant for review and comment within 
30 days. As of this date, no response has been received by this 
office (Exhibit F). 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

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 or injustice. In this 
respect, we note the evidence supports the applicant's contention 
that he was not given the required mandatory initial and midterm 
feedback sessions. Granted, a rater's failure to conduct a 
required or requested feedback session will not, of itself, 
invalidate any subsequent EPR. However, as pointed out by DPSID, 
when a required feedback does not take place, it is the ratee's 
responsibility to notify the rater. According to his first 
sergeant, the applicant requested feedback on several occasions; 
however, the rater did not provide formal feedback until the 
close-out date of the report. Therefore, we find sufficient 
doubt has been raised as to the accuracy of the report. We 
believe it would be in the interest of justice to resolve any 
doubt in favor of the applicant. Therefore, we recommend the 
contested EPR be declared void and removed from his records. 

 

4. The applicant's case is adequately documented and it has not 
been shown that a personal appearance with or without counsel 
will materially add to our understanding of the issues involved. 
Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorably 
considered. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

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, AF Form 910, rendered for the 
period 17 Jan 2010 through 27 Oct 2010, be declared void and 
removed from his records. It is further recommended that he be 
provided supplemental consideration for promotion to the grade 
of technical sergeant (E-6) for the 11E6 cycle. 

 

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 qualifications for the 
promotion. 

 

If supplemental promotion consideration results in the selection 
for promotion to the higher grade, immediately after such 
promotion, the records shall be corrected to show that he was 
promoted to the higher grade on the date of rank established by 
the supplemental promotion and that he is entitled to all pay, 
allowances, and benefits of such grade as of that date. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

The following members of the Board considered this application 
in Executive Session on 12 Jun 2012, under the provisions of AFI 
36-2603: 

 

 , Panel Chair 

, Member 

 , Member 

 

All members voted to correct the records, as recommended. The 
following documentary evidence was considered in AFBCMR BC-2011-
04746: 

 

 Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 17 Nov 2011, w/atchs. 

 Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. 

 Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPSID, dated 23 Jan 2012. 

 Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/DPSOE, dated 14 Feb 2012. 

 Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 23 Mar 2012. 

 

 

 

 

 

 Panel Chair