RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

AF 

IMTs 

1168, 

AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 
DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2012-00935 
COUNSEL: NONE 
HEARING DESIRED: NO 

 
IN THE MATTER OF: 
   
       
 
_________________________________________________________________ 
 
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 
 
His  AF  Form  910,  Enlisted  Performance  Report  (EPR)  (AB  thru 
TSgt),  rendered  for  the  period  3  Jul  10  through  2  Jul  11  be 
declared void and removed from his records.  
 
_________________________________________________________________ 
 
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 
 
1. He  received  a  letter  of  counseling  (LOC)  and  a  letter  of 
reprimand  (LOR)  for  financial  irresponsibility  despite  having 
provided letters stating he was unaware of his spouse’s actions. 
 
2. He was unduly punished by his first sergeant for actions that 
“he  got  away  with”  during  a  previous  assignment  in  which  the 
first sergeant was his supervisor.  
 
3. He received a LOC for missing an appointment, not for being 
late.  
 
In support of his request, the applicant provides copies of the 
contested 
of 
Suspect/Witness/Complainant,  LOR,  LOC  and  other  documentation 
associated with his request.  
 
The  applicant’s  complete  submission,  with  attachments,  is  at 
Exhibit A. 
 
_________________________________________________________________ 
 
STATEMENT OF FACTS: 
 
The  applicant  is  currently  serving  on  active  duty  in  the  grade 
of technical sergeant (TSgt).  
 
On  12  Apr  11,  the  applicant  was  counseled  for  maintaining 
insufficient funds at the Air Force Federal Credit Union.   
 
On 8 Jun 11, the applicant received a LOC for failure to go to a 
mandatory appointment.   
 
On  27  Jun  11,  the  applicant  received  a  LOR  for  financial 
irresponsibility.   
 

Statement 

EPR, 

On 4 Aug 11, the applicant received a referral EPR for multiple 
incidents of financial irresponsibility and a separate incident 
of failure to go.  
 
The  applicant  did  not  file  an  appeal  through  the  Evaluation 
Report Appeals Board (ERAB) under the provisions of AFI 36-2401, 
Correcting Officer and Enlisted Evaluation Reports.  
 
The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are 
contained in the letters prepared by the appropriate offices of 
the Air Force, which are attached at Exhibit B and C.  
 
_________________________________________________________________ 
 
AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 
 
AFPC/DPSID  recommends  denial.    DPSID  states  evaluators  are 
strongly  encouraged  to  comment  in  performance  reports  on 
misconduct  that  reflects  a  disregard  of  the  law,  whether  civil 
law  or  the  Uniform  Code  of  Military  Justice,  or  when  adverse 
actions  such  as  Article  15,  LOR,  Admonishment,  Counseling,  or 
placement on the Control Roster have been taken.  In this case, 
the applicant’s rating chain did choose to comment, which caused 
the report to be referred.   
 
The  applicant  did  not  provide  any  evidence  that  would 
substantiate his assertions of unfair or overly harsh treatment 
by  his  rating  chain.    To  prove  any  allegation  of  unfair  or 
overly harsh treatment, the applicant would need to provide the 
results of an independent Inspector General, Commander Directed 
Investigation or other official investigation finding germane to 
his  appeal,  which  are  considered  credible  sources.    The 
applicant provides none of this documentation in his appeal, and 
although  declaring  in  his  referral  EPR  rebuttal  that  he  fully 
accepts  responsibility  for  his  actions,  he  uses  much  of  the 
rebuttal  itself  to  chastise  his  spouse  for  her  role  in  the 
incidents  of  financial  irresponsibility,  and  conveniently 
minimizes any role he might have played in the misconduct.   
 
While one can sympathize with the applicant’s experience thru a 
trying  personal  ordeal,  the  fact  remains  that  he  received  all 
administrative actions for actions which were under his control, 
and ultimately his responsibility.   
 
The  Air  Force  places  great  trust  in  its  constituent  member’s 
ability  to  manage  their  own  and  their  dependents  personal  and 
financial  affairs.    The  applicant,  from  the  evidence  provided, 
was  given  the  opportunity  to  rebut  both  administrative  actions 
as  well  as  the  referral  report  itself.    No  evidence  has  been 
provided  in  the  appeal  that  any  of  the  administrative  actions 
commented  on  the  report  have  been  rescinded  or  otherwise 
invalidated.  
 

 

2

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 
applicant  has  not  substantiated  that  the  contested  report  was 
not rendered in good faith by all evaluators based on knowledge 
available at the time. 
 
The complete DPSID evaluation is at Exhibit B. 
 
AFPC/DPSOE  finds  the  report  accurate  as  written  and  defers  to 
the recommendation of DPSID.   
 
The  applicant  was  considered  and  tentatively  selected  for 
promotion  to  the  grade  of  master  sergeant  (MSgt)  during  cycle 
11E7.  He received promotion sequence number 1560.0 which would 
have incremented 1 Sep 11; however, receipt of the referral EPR 
rendered him ineligible for promotion in accordance with AFI 36-
2502,  Airman  Promotion/Demotion  Programs.    His  line  number  to 
MSgt  was  subsequently  removed.    He  remains  ineligible  for 
promotion consideration to MSgt during the current cycle (12E7) 
as  he  did  not  have  a  nonreferral  report  rendered  prior  to  the 
cycle promotion eligibility cutoff date (31 Dec 11). 
 
The complete DPSOE evaluation is at Exhibit C. 
 
_________________________________________________________________ 
 
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 
 
Copies  of  the  Air  Force  evaluations  were  forwarded  to  the 
applicant  on  25  Jun  12  for  review  and  comment  within  30  days 
(Exhibit D).  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  injustice  warranting 
voidance and removal of the contested EPR from his records.  We 
are  not  persuaded  by  the  evidence  provided  that  the  contested 
report is not a true and accurate assessment of his performance 
and  demonstrated  potential  during  the  specified  time  period, 
that the comments contained in the report are in error, and that 
the  report  was  prepared  in  a  manner  contrary  to  the  provisions 
of  the  governing  instruction.    Therefore,  we  agree  with  the 
opinion  and  recommendation  of  DPSID  and  adopt  its  rationale  as 

 

3

the basis for our conclusion that the applicant has not been the 
victim  of  an  error  or  injustice.  In  the  absence  of  persuasive 
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-2012-00935  in  Executive  Session  on  13  Sep  12,  under 
the provisions of AFI 36-2603: 
 
 
 
 
  
The following documentary evidence was considered: 
 
   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 6 Mar 12, w/atchs. 
   Exhibit B.  Letter, AFPC/DPSID, dated 21 May 12. 
   Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPSOE, dated 11 Jun 12. 
   Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 25 Jun 12. 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Panel Chair 
Member 
Member 

 
Panel Chair 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

  
  
  

 
 
 

 

4