AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

5 
5 
5 
4 
5 
5 

DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2012-00827 
COUNSEL:  NONE 
HEARING DESIRED:  NO 

 
IN THE MATTER OF: 
 
   
 
       
 
_________________________________________________________________ 
 
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 
 
His  AF  Form  910,  Enlisted  Performance  Report  (AB  thru  TSgt), 
rendered  for  the  period  5 Apr 08  through  13 Jan 09  be  removed 
from his records. 
 
_________________________________________________________________ 
 
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 
 
The EPR in question contained comments that were not truthful or 
accurate.  His commander had his rater prepare a memorandum for 
record (MOR) indicating feedback had been completed when it had 
not.  The feedback date recorded on the contested EPR was a date 
prior to the inclusive period for the report. 
 
In support of his request, the applicant provides copies of his 
EPRs for periods ending 4 Apr 08 and 13 Jan 09, his appeal to the 
Evaluation Report Appeals Board (ERAB) and, a memorandum from his 
rater dated 6 May 08. 
 
Applicant’s  complete  submission,  with  attachments,  is  at 
Exhibit A. 
 
_________________________________________________________________ 
 
STATEMENT OF FACTS: 
 
The applicant is currently serving on active duty in the rank of 
Technical Sergeant (TSgt). 
 
Applicant’s EPR profile as a TSgt is listed below: 
 
      PERIOD ENDING 
 
        13 Jan 12 
        13 Jan 11 
        13 Jan 10 
       *13 Jan 09 
         4 Apr 08 
         4 Apr 07 
 
*Contested Report 

  OVERALL EVALUATION 
   
   
   
   
   
   

 
Air  Force  Instruction  (AFI)  36-2406,  Officer  and  Enlisted 
Evaluation Systems, Table 2.1, Rule 2, Note 1, states the rater 
must  conduct  the  initial  feedback  session  within  the  first  60 
days  he  or  she  initially  begins  supervision.    In  addition, 
Chapter  2,  paragraph  2.10.  states  while  documented  feedback 
sessions  are  required,  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. 
 
AFI  36-2401,  Correcting  Officer  and  Enlisted  Reports, paragraph 
A1.5.8  states  only  members  in  the  rating  chain  can  confirm  if 
counseling was provided. 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. For example, if 
after a positive feedback session, an evaluator discovers serious 
problems,  he  or  she  must  record  the  problems  in  the  evaluation 
report even when it disagrees with the previous feedback. There 
may  be  occasions  when  feedback  was  not  provided  during  a 
reporting period. 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. You must also supply specific information about the 
unfair  evaluation  so  the  Board  can  make  a  reasoned  judgment  on 
the  appeal.  Finally,  every  airman  knows  the  existing  standards 
for  indebtedness,  weight,  fitness,  etc.  Lack  of  counseling  in 
these areas provides no valid basis for voiding a report. 
 
_________________________________________________________________ 
 
AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 
 
AFPC/DPSID  recommends  denial  noting  there  is  no  evidence  the 
contested  report  was  unjust  or  inaccurate.    The  applicant  did 
file an appeal with the Evaluation Reports Appeal Board (ERAB).  
The  ERAB  reviewed  the  application  and  was  not  convinced  the 
contested  report  was  inaccurate  or  unjust.    Furthermore,  it  is 
the ratee’s responsibility to notify the rater and, if necessary, 
the  rater’s  rater,  when  required  or  requested  feedback  did  not 
take place.  The applicant has not provided evidence, or stated 
that  he  made  any  attempt  to  ensure  he  received  his  required 
feedback.    Moreover,  while  Air  Force  policy  requires  formal 
feedback be documented, a direct correlation between information 
provided  during  the  feedback  session  and  the  assessments  on  an 
evaluation  report  does  not  necessarily  exist.    For  example,  if 
after a positive feedback session, an evaluator discovers serious 
problems, the evaluator must record the problem in the evaluation 
report  even  when  it  disagrees  with  the  previous  feedback.  
Additionally,  a  formal  feedback  does  not  negate  any  day-to-day 

 

2

that 

may 

include 

any 

of 

from 

type 

absence 

of 

information 

evaluators, 

interaction 
formal 
feedback/counseling,  whether  verbal  or  in  writing.  Furthermore, 
the lack of counseling or feedback, by itself, is not sufficient 
justification to challenge the accuracy or justness of a report.  
Evaluators must confirm that they did not provide counseling or 
feedback,  and  that  this  directly  resulted  in  an  unfair 
evaluation.   
 
The applicant also alleged the feedback date on the contested EPR 
was  a  date  from  the  prior  reporting  period.    The  previous  EPR 
closed out on 4 Apr 08, and the feedback date on the contested 
ERP  was  5  May  08,  a  month  after  the  close  out  date  of  the 
previous  report,  and  therefore  represents  the  date  the  rater 
provided  the  initial  feedback.    In  addition,  to  effectively 
challenge an EPR, it is imperative to hear from all the members 
of  the  rating  chain--not  only  for  support,  but  also  for 
clarification  and  explanation.    The  applicant  has  not  provided 
any information or documented support from his rating chain.  In 
the 
official 
substantiation  of  an  error  or  an  injustice  from  the  Inspector 
General  (IG)  or  Military  Equal  Opportunity  is  appropriate,  but 
has not been provided with his case. 
 
An  evaluation  report  is  considered  to  represent  the  rating 
chain’s best judgment at the time it is rendered.  Furthermore, 
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 and he has not 
provided any evidence to show the contested report was unjust or 
inaccurate 
 
The complete AFPC/DPSID evaluation is at Exhibit C. 
 
AFPC/DPSOE  defers  to  the  recommendation  of  AFPC/DPSID.    DPSOE 
notes the applicant was considered and not selected for promotion 
by  the  10E7  and  11E7  promotion  cycles.    However,  even  if  the 
Board  voids  the  contested  report,  supplemental  promotion 
consideration  would  not  be  necessary  for  past  cycles  as  the 
applicant would remain a nonselect.  The applicant was considered 
and selected for promotion to master sergeant (MSgt) during the 
12E7 promotion cycle.  
 
The complete AFPC/DPSOE evaluation is at Exhibit D. 
 
_________________________________________________________________ 
 

 

3

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 
 
Copies  of  the  Air  Force  evaluations  were  forwarded  to  the 
applicant on 4 Jun 12, for review and comment within 30 days.  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. 
 
3.  Insufficient  relevant  evidence  has  been  presented  to 
demonstrate the existence of an error or an injustice.  We took 
notice  of  the  applicant’s  complete  submission  in  judging  the 
merits of the case; however, we agree with the opinion and the 
recommendation of the APC/DPSID and adopt their rationale as the 
basis for our decision that the applicant has failed to sustain 
his burden of proof of the existence of an error or injustice.  
Applicant's  contentions  are  duly  noted,  however,  we  are  not 
persuaded  by  the  evidence  provided  to  recommend  removal  of  the 
performance  report  in  question.    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-2012-00827 in Executive Session on 28 Sep 12, under the 
provisions of AFI 36-2603: 
 
 
 
 
  

  Chair 
  Member 
  Member 

 

4

The  following  documentary  evidence  pertaining  to  AFBCMR  Docket 
Number BC-2012-00827 was considered: 
 
   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 24 Feb 12, w/atchs. 
   Exhibit B.  Applicant’s Master Personnel Records. 
   Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPSID, dated 26 Apr 12. 
   Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPSOE, dated 22 May 12. 
   Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 4 Jun 12. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
Chair 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 

5