AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

 
DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2011-04279 
COUNSEL:  NONE 
HEARING DESIRED:  NO 

IN THE MATTER OF: 
   
   
 
________________________________________________________________ 
 
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 
 
The  Enlisted  Performance  Report  (EPR)  rendered  for  the  period 
13 Mar 2011 through 14 Aug 2011, be declared void, or her rater 
be changed. 
 
________________________________________________________________ 
 
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 
 
Her  civilian  supervisor,  did  not  have  the  proper  training 
required  to  supervise  military  personal,  nor  did  she  meet  the 
waiver requirements as outlined in AFI 36-401, Employee Training 
and  Development,  Attachment  2,  and  AFI  36-2406,  Officer  and 
Enlisted Evaluation Systems.  
 
This  report  was  written  based  of  personal  disagreements  and 
possible reprisal for filing an Air Force Inspector General (IG) 
complaint  on  21  Jan  2011,  and  had  nothing  to  do  with  her  duty 
performance. 
 
The  37th  Training  Support  Squadron  (TRSS)  is  responsible  for 
maintaining control of Personnel Information Files (PIF) for all 
group personnel.  However, her supervisor maintained an illegal 
PIF in her desk drawer, which she did not have immediate access 
to.    During  the  EPR  feedback  session,  her  supervisor  provided 
her  with  AFI  33-332,  Privacy  Act  Program,  Air  Education  and 
Training Command (AETC) Supplement 1, and advised her she could 
use  the  Privacy  Act  program  to  request  a  copy  of  her  “desk 
drawer” PIF.  This is unfair in policy and practice.  She should 
have immediate access to documents which are being used against 
her.    Requesting  her  records  though  the  Freedom  of  Information 
Act (FOIA) takes 20 days.  She only had three days to decide if 
she would sign the EPR. 
 
Her supervisor completed a Letter of Counseling (LOC) which was 
not  in  accordance  with  regulations.    The  entire  format  of  the 
document  was  incorrect,  improper  personnel  were  present  during 
discussion  of  the  proposed  LOC,  she  was  not  afforded  the 
opportunity  to  respond  to  the  LOC,  and  the  document  was  never 
signed  at  all.    However,  she  considered  this  document  when 
preparing her EPR.  
 

 
Her supervisor was unaware of the requirement in AFI 36-2406 to 
conduct  proper  face-to-face  feedback  prior  to  the  EPR  being 
signed.    She  was  informed  on  several  different  occasions  by 
herself and others, that she must provide face-to-face feedback 
to  discuss  the  EPR  prior  to  obtaining  her  signature.    Her 
supervisor  continued  to  insist  on  providing  the  feedback 
electronically  until  the  first  sergeant  intervened  and  advised 
her of the requirement. 
 
Significant  inputs  such  as  making  the  university  President’s 
List for maintaining a 4.0 grade point average in May 2011, and 
helping  the  American  Heart  Association  raise  over  $119,000  in 
May 2011 were left out of her EPR. 
 
In  support  of  her  request,  the  applicant  provides,  a  personal 
statement,  EPRs  for  the  last  10  years,  decorations,  formal 
feedbacks, and electronic communiqués. 
 
The  applicant's  complete  submission,  with  attachments,  is  at 
Exhibit A. 
 
________________________________________________________________ 
 
STATEMENT OF FACTS: 
 
On 31 Mar 2012, the applicant retired from the Air Force in the 
grade of senior master sergeant (SMSgt, E-8). 
 
The  following  is  a  resume  of  the  applicant’s  performance 
profile: 
 
Period Ending 
 
   1 Jul 2001 
   1 Jul 2002 
  30 Apr 2003 
  30 Apr 2004 
  12 Mar 2005 
  12 Mar 2006 
  12 Mar 2007 
  12 Mar 2008 
  12 Mar 2009 
  12 Mar 2010 
  12 Mar 2011 
* 14 Aug 2011 
 *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 B and C. 
 
________________________________________________________________ 

OVERALL EVALUATION 
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   

5 
5 
5 
5 
5 
5 
5 
5 
5 
5 
5 
4 

 

2 

AFI 

Information 

File 

Unfavorable 

36-2907, 

 
AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 
 
HQ  AFPC/DPSIMC  recommends  approval  of  removing  the  applicant’s 
LOC,  dated  4  Aug  2011  from  her  records.    DPSIMC  states,  the 
applicant  did  not  acknowledge  receipt  of  the  LOC  within  three 
duty  days  however,  she    did  provide  a  rebuttal  to  the  LOC  on 
10 Aug 2011.  The use of the LOC by commanders and supervisors is 
an exercise of supervisory authority and responsibility directed 
by 
Program.  
Specifically, the LOC is an official record on a member that is 
initiated by a member's supervisor.  The LOC dated 4 Aug 2011 was 
not processed in accordance with AFI 36-2907. 
 
The complete AFPC/DPSIMC evaluation is at Exhibit C. 
 
HQ AFPC/DPSID recommends denial to remove the contested report.  
DPSID  states  the  applicant  did  not  file  an  appeal  through  the 
Evaluation Reports Appeal Board’s (ERAB) under the provisions of 
AFI 36-240l, Correcting Officer and Enlisted Evaluation Reports. 
 
The applicant received a non-referral EPR, with no mention of the 
LOC  in  the  report.    The  issuance  of  the  LOC  appears  to  be  an 
isolated incident.  AFI 36-2401, states in part that although the 
applicant  may  feel  the  evaluator  has  overstressed  an  isolated 
incident or a short period of substandard performance or conduct, 
the  evaluator  is  obliged  to  consider  such  incidents,  their 
significance,  and  the  frequency  with  which  they  occurred  in 
assessing  performance  and  potential.    Only  the  evaluator  knows 
how much an incident influenced the report.  Whether or not the 
LOC  was  a  factor  in  the  ratings  and  comments  on  the  EPR  is 
unknown,  but  based  on  the  presumed  validity  of  the  LOC,  any 
consideration  of  it  in  the  preparation  of  this  EPR  would  have 
been valid and within the rater's rights to do so.  The applicant 
has not provided any documentation, either from her rating chain 
or  from  any  independent  investigation  to  demonstrate  that  the 
issuance of the LOC by her rater unduly influenced the contested 
evaluation. 
 
The applicant additionally alleges that her civilian rater, was 
unaware  of  procedures  for  properly  conducting  feedbacks,  In 
accordance with AFI 36-2406, she did not follow proper procedures 
in this regard.  The applicant, in one of her specific charges, 
claims  that  her  initial  feedback  was  not  conducted,  but  in 
contradiction of this statement, the applicant provides the very 
initial feedback she claims was never accomplished  (attachment 
4 of her case).  When her report closed out the applicant also 
claims that she never received  any negative feedback  from her 
rater  prior  to  this  feedback,  and  that  she  was  not  allowed  to 
properly clarify and or justify any of the markdowns on the EPR, 
as given by the rater.  The applicant further claims that none of 
the performance issues were documented nor disclosed prior to the 
close out of the EPR.  It should be obvious to the applicant that 
the rater did in fact document substandard performance, in the  

 

3 

 
form of the very LOC the applicant provided in her case.  What 
must also be taken into consideration is AFI 36-2401, Attachment 
1,  Paragraph  A1.5.8,  which  states  that  lack  of  counseling  or 
feedback, by itself, is not sufficient to challenge the accuracy 
or justness of a report.  AFI 36-2406, Paragraph 2.1 0, states 
that  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,  will  not,  of  itself,  invalidate  any  subsequent 
performance  report.    DPSID  states,  that  in  the  absence  of  any 
evidence  to  the  contrary,  the  rater  did  follow  all  applicable 
policies and procedures in the preparation and completion of the 
contested evaluation. 
 
In regards to the applicant’s allegation that the marked down EPR 
was  the  result  of  an  Air  Force  IG  complaint,  she  contends  she 
filed prior to the beginning of this rating period.  She does not 
provide  any  evidence  of  either  filing  an  IG  complaint  or  the 
results of such an investigation.  The applicant has not proved 
in her appeal  that filing  of such IG complaint had any impact 
on  the  EPR  she  is  contesting.    Accordingly,  they  find  this 
element of her appeal without any merit and therefore irrelevant. 
 
She  alleges  that  due  to  a  personality  conflict  between  herself 
and her rater, her rater omitted important accomplishments from 
the contested evaluation.  In accordance with  AFI 36-2401, it is 
up to the applicant to provide proof of this specific allegation, 
which  she  has  not  done.    She  must  provide  first  hand  evidence 
that clearly shows  how the conflict prevented the evaluator from 
preparing  a  fair  and  accurate  report.    If  other  evaluators 
support an appeal because they were unaware of a conflict at the 
time,  they  should  provide  specific  information  (and  cite  their 
sources)  which  leads  them  to  believe  the  report  is  not  an 
objective assessment.  Based on a lack of any evidence provided 
by the applicant that would show that the conflict was personal, 
DPSID  contends  the  rater  acted  professionally  in  regards  to 
preparing  the  contested  evaluation  and  rated  the  applicant 
fairly. 
 
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  the  members  of  the  rating  chain-not 
only  for  support,  but  also  for  clarification/explanation.    The 
applicant has failed to provide any information or support from 
the  rating  chain  on  the  contested  EPR.    In  the  absence  of 
information  from evaluators, official substantiation of error or 
injustice  from  the  IG  or  Military  Equal  Opportunity  is 
appropriate,  but  not  provided.    In  this  case,  the  applicant 
claims to have filed an IG complaint, however the applicant did 
not  provide  any  evidence  of  such  an  investigation  which  may  or 
may  not  have  substantiated  her  overall  appeal.    It  appears  the 
report was accomplished in direct accordance with applicable Air  

 

4 

 
Force instructions.  DPSID states, 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. 
 
The complete AFPC/DPSID evaluation is at Exhibit D. 
 
________________________________________________________________ 
 
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 
 
On  20  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 E). 
 
________________________________________________________________ 
 
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  an  error  or  injustice.    We  took 
careful 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 that DPSIMC recommends the LOC dated 4 Aug 2011 be removed 
due to procedural errors; however, we ascertained the LOC is not 
a  part  of  the  applicant’s  military  personnel  records. 
Notwithstanding  the  above,  we  are  not  persuaded  that  the 
contested  report  is  not  a  true  and  accurate  assessment  of  her 
demonstrated potential during the specified time period or that 
the  ratings  she  received  were  in  error  or  contrary  to  the 
provisions  of  the  governing  instruction.    Therefore,  in  the 
absence of persuasive evidence to the contrary, we find no basis 
to recommend granting the relief sought in this application. 
 
________________________________________________________________ 
 

 

5 

 
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 
in Executive Session on 31 May 2012, under the provisions of AFI 
36-2603: 
 
 
  
 
The following documentary evidence was considered in AFBCMR BC-
2011-04279: 
 
    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 17 Oct 2011, w/atchs. 
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records. 
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPSIMC, dated 22 Dec 2011. 
    Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPSID, dated 27 Feb 2012. 
    Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 20 Mar 12. 
 
 
 
  
                                   Panel Chair 

     Panel Chair 
     Member 
 Member 
 

 

6