DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2012-00540 
 
COUNSEL:  NONE 
HEARING DESIRED: NO 

                       RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 
 
IN THE MATTER OF: 
   
 
    
 
   
 
_________________________________________________________________ 
 
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 
 
The AF Form 911,  Enlisted  Performance  Report (EPR), rendered for 
the  period  of  2  Apr  10  through  26  Oct  10,  be  declared  void  and 
removed from his records. 
 
_________________________________________________________________ 
 
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 
 
The referral report he received was unjustly rendered as a “3” in 
violation of numerous requirements of Air Force Instruction (AFI) 
36-2406, Officer and Enlisted Evaluation Systems.   
 
1.  He should have received an annual report instead of a Change 
of Rating Official (CRO) report as he was preparing for a 365-day 
TDY assignment.  The reporting instructions for the TDY stated a 
CRO was not required. 
 
2.  The contested report should not have been a referral report.  
Had the report not been rendered as a CRO, it would not have been 
a referral because he would have had a chance to attain a passing 
fitness assessment (FA) score under the 91-day rule as set forth 
in AFI 36-2905, Fitness Program. 
 
3.  He  was  not  given  a  fair  opportunity  to  overcome  his 
deficiencies because of the excessive time it took to process his 
report in violation of AFI 36-2406. 
 
4.  The  feedback  date  indicated  is  false  as  he  did  not  receive 
feedback during the rating period. 
 
5.  He  failed  the  FA  due  to  complications  from  injuries  he 
received  as  a  result  of  an  automobile  accident.    His  pre-TDY 
training aggravated his injuries which led to his FA failure. 
 
In  support  of  his  appeal,  the  applicant  provides  copies  of  the 
contested  EPR,  the  accompanying  letter  of  notification,  his 
rebuttal  thereto,  pertinent  email  traffic,  his  appeal  to  the 
Evaluation Reports Appeal Board (ERAB), and a subsequent EPR. 
 
 

 

1 

The  applicant’s  complete  submission,  with  attachments,  is  at 
Exhibit A. 
 
_________________________________________________________________ 
 
STATEMENT OF FACTS: 
 
The  applicant  began  his  military  service  in  Sep  89.    He  is 
currently serving in the Regular Air Force.  Additional relevant 
facts  pertaining  to  this  application,  extracted  from  the 
applicant’s  military  records,  are  contained  in  the  letters 
prepared by the appropriate offices of the Air Force at Exhibits 
C, D, and E.   
 
_________________________________________________________________ 
 
AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS: 
 
AFPC/DPSIM recommends denial of the applicant’s request to remove 
his 21 Oct 11 FA score.  The applicant was correctly administered 
his  fitness  assessment  in  accordance  with  Air  Force  Instruction 
36-2905,  Fitness  Program.    The  applicant  had  no  AF  IMT  422, 
Physical Profile, on file at the time of his FA, nor was there any 
indication he was experiencing any medical issues.  He failed the 
FA  due  to  not  meeting  the  minimum  requirement  for  the  abdominal 
circumference component of the FA. 
 
A complete copy of the AFPC/DPSIM evaluation is at Exhibit C. 
 
AFPC/DPSID recommends denial of the applicant’s request to remove 
the  contested  EPR  from  his  records,  indicating  there  is  no 
evidence of an error or injustice. 
 
1.  While  he  argues  he  should  have  received  an  annual  report 
instead of a CRO report due to his pending 365-day TDY assignment, 
Personnel  Services  Delivery  Memorandum  (PSDM)  08-47,  Extended 
Deployments,  indicates  that  a  CRO  report  will  be  generated  if 
there has been at least 120 days supervision prior to departure.  
An  annual  report  will  be  generated  if  at  least  60  days  of 
supervision has transpired and at least one year has passed since 
the last report.  Other than not preparing a timely report, a CRO 
was clearly justified and properly accomplished. 
 
2.  As for his argument that the 91-day rule would have prevented 
the  report  from  being  a  referral,  as  stated  above,  a  CRO  report 
was  appropriately  generated  and  appropriately  referred  to  the 
applicant because he failed his FA three days prior to the close-
out of the report.  Therefore, the referral EPR is considered to 
be  valid,  accurate,  and  in  accordance  with  applicable  Air  Force 
policy and procedures. 
 
3.    As  for  his  argument  the  reporting  instructions  for  his 
deployment  indicated  that  a  CRO  was  not  required,  the  applicant 
has not provided any evidence to support his assertion. 

 

2 

addresses 

the 

applicant’s 

4.  Regarding his attempt to use the lateness of his report as a 
reason  for  voiding  the  report,  the  applicant’s  follow-on  report 
was a fire-wall 5 EPR with no fitness failure noted.  Therefore, 
his  argument  that  he  did  not  have  enough  time  to  overcome  any 
deficiencies listed on his referral report is without merit. 
 
5.  As for his assertion that he did not receive feedback during 
the reporting period, the applicant has not provided any evidence 
the date of feedback is incorrect.  Therefore, in the absence of 
such evidence, the presumption is that feedback did occur on the 
date indicated. 
 
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 the individual’s record.  The applicant 
has not substantiated the contested report was inaccurate or not 
rendered  in  good  faith  by  all  evaluator’s  based  on  knowledge 
available at the time. 
 
A complete copy of the AFPC/DPSID evaluation is at Exhibit D. 
 
potential 
AFPC/DPSOE 
contingent upon the decision of the Board.  A referral report is 
an  ineligibility  condition  for  promotion  in  accordance  with  AFI 
36-2502; however, the applicant received a nonreferral EPR for the 
period 27 Oct 10 – 23 Sep 11, rendering him eligible for promotion 
consideration to the grade of senior master sergeant (SMSgt / E-
8),  for  cycle  12E8.    Unfortunately,  the  nonreferral  EPR  was  not 
entered into the system in time for his record to meet the Central 
SMSgt  Evaluation  Board  which  convened  on  30  Jan  12.    Since  he 
tested out-of-cycle for 12E8 on 11 Apr 12, he will be required to 
administratively request supplemental consideration for cycle 12E8 
through his servicing MPS.   
 
A complete copy of the AFPC/DPSOE evaluation is at Exhibit E. 
 
_________________________________________________________________ 
 
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 
 
Copies  of  the  Air  Force  evaluations  were  forwarded  to  the 
applicant  on  11  May  12  for  review  and  comment  within  30  days 
(Exhibit F).  As of this date, no response has been received by 
this office. 
 
_________________________________________________________________ 
 
THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT: 
 
1.  The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by existing 
law or regulations. 
 
2.  The application was timely filed. 

promotion 

 

3 

3.  Insufficient  relevant  evidence  has  been  presented  to 
demonstrate  the  existence  of  an  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  the 
applicant  has  not  been  the  victim  of  an  error  or  injustice.  
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  the  evidence  presented  did  not 
demonstrate  the  existence  of  material  error  or  injustice;  the 
application  was  denied  without  a  personal  appearance;  and  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-2012-00540  in  Executive  Session  on  19  Jul  12,  under  the 
provisions of AFI 36-2603: 
 
 
 
 
 
The following documentary evidence was considered: 
 
    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 25 Jan 12, w/atchs. 
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records. 
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPSIM, dated 24 Feb 12, w/atch. 
    Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPSID, dated 9 Apr 12. 
    Exhibit E.  Letter, AFPC/DPSOE, dated 23 Apr 12. 
    Exhibit F.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 11 May 12. 
 
 
 
 
                                     
                                   Chair 
 
 

  Chair 
  Member 
  Member 

 

 

4