RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 
 
IN THE MATTER OF: 
DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2012-01393 
 
COUNSEL:  NONE 
   
 
   
HEARING DESIRED: YES 
 
________________________________________________________________ 
 
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 
 
1.  All versions of her AF Form 911, Enlisted Performance Report 
(MSgt  thru  CMSgt)  (EPR),  for  the  period  of  25  August  2008 
through  24 July  2009  be  voided  and  removed  from  her  military 
records. 
 
2.  Her  records  be  reconsidered  by  the  calendar  year  2010  and 
2011 E-9 supplemental promotion boards. 
 
________________________________________________________________ 
 
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 
 
Her final performance report is inaccurate and unjust because it 
does  not  reflect  a  true  account  of  her  performance  and 
enforcement  of  standards  as  the  Inspector  General  (IG) 
Superintendent throughout 2008-2009.  Specifically, the markdown 
in  section  III,  block  2,  “Standards”  was  a  reprisal  for  her 
investigations of an inappropriate relationship between the wing 
command chief and a young Staff Sergeant (SSgt) as well as other 
investigations  of  senior  enlisted  members  serving  in  wing 
leadership positions.   
 
In March 2008, she was selected from a pool of several qualified 
applicants  to  work  in  the  IG  office.    The  new  IG,  her  rater, 
arrived in August 2008.   
 
Sometime in September 2008, a young SSgt reported an allegation 
to her, in her official capacity, of an affair between the wing 
command chief and the SSgt.  She disclosed the alleged affair to 
the  wing’s  vice  commander  in  a  protected  communication.    He 
assured  her  protection  throughout  the  investigation  of  the 
complaint.    At  that  time,  the  wing  commander  and  the  IG  were 
deployed. 
 
On 9 April 2009, she received mid-term feedback from her rater.  
Although  two  categories  on  the  formal  feedback  were  not  marked 
“clearly  exceeds”  he  assured  her  this  was  the  first  time  he 
supervised an enlisted member and it was nothing to worry about.  
He assured her that the markdowns would not be reflected on her 
EPR.   

 

 

 
 

 
On 2 July 2009, she made a protected communication with the new 
wing command chief.  Since he was new to the base she hoped he 
would give her a fair opportunity to resolve her concerns.  She 
disclosed  to  him  the  reprisal  from  her  rater  and  the  senior 
enlisted  leaders  under  investigation  within  and  outside  of  the 
wing  and  the  incidences  of  their  harassment  and  attempts  to 
remove her from her position.   
 
On 27 July 2009, she filed an Air Mobility Command (AMC) Equal 
Opportunity  (EO)  harassment  and  Department  of  Defense  (DoD)  IG 
Reprisal complaint.  Because the harassment continued well into 
her Permanent Change of Station (PCS), the EO complaint was not 
finalized until 25 August 2009.   
 
On 24 August 2009, she was given a copy of the draft of her EPR 
for  the  reporting  period.    The  report  contained  firewall  “5” 
ratings  and  accurately  reflected  her  duties,  responsibilities 
and performance.   
 
On or about 26 August 2009, the EO Director formally briefed and 
provided  a  copy  of  her  harassment/reprisal  allegations  to  the 
wing leadership. Providing a copy of the allegations in advance 
to  the  IG’s  chain  of  command  was  unjust,  unethical  and  unfair 
considering they were the individuals named in the complaint.   
 
Also on 26 August 2009, her final EPR for the reporting period 
was signed.  It included a markdown in the “Standards” section.  
She did not receive any feedback in 2008 or 2009 that indicated 
she  would  receive  her  first-ever  performance  markdown  or  that 
her  job  performance  was  not  meeting  expectations.    It  was  not 
until  8 August  2011,  when  she  received  the  DoD/IG  report  that 
she learned that claims of “performance issues” resulted in her 
marked down EPR. 
 
The  DoD/IG  officially  concluded  that  “unfavorable  personnel 
actions  were  not  taken  in  reprisal  for  her  protected 
communications.”    They  explained  that  the  primary  reason  was 
that  her  rater  wrote  the  EPR  on  11  August  2009,  before  the  EO 
complaint  was  finalized  and  before  EO  officially  briefed  the 
wing leadership.   
 
Her  career,  life,  and  family  were  negatively  impacted  over  the 
past two and a half years by these devastating events.   
 
In  support  of  her  request,  the  applicant  provides  a  personal 
statement,  supporting  memorandums,  and  related  documents 
including  the  DoD/IG  reprisal  allegations  conclusion  w/atchs, 
copies  of;  varying  versions  of  the  contested  EPR,  AF  Form  932 
Performance  Feedback  Worksheet(s)  (MSgt  thru  CMSgt),  the 
Military  Equal  Opportunity  Formal  Complaint  Summary,  email 

 

 
 
2 

correspondence,  an  AF  IMT  1206,  Nomination  for  Award,  and  the 
ERAB case form.   
 
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  Senior  Master  Sergeant  (E-8),  having  assumed  that 
grade effective and with date of rank (DOR) of 1 February 2009.   
 
On  or  about  27  July  2009,  the  applicant  filed  an  IG  complaint 
under  the  Military  Whistleblower  Protection  Act.    She  alleged 
that  she  received  a  marked  down  EPR,  was  removed  from  her 
Inspector  General  Superintendent  position,  and  involuntarily 
received a permanent change of station move in reprisal for her 
protected  communications  to  the  wing  Inspector  General,  the 
equal opportunity advisor, and her chain of command.   
 
The  Department  of  Defense  IG  (DoD/IG)  investigated  her 
allegations.    The  investigation  did  not  substantiate  the 
applicant’s  allegation  of  reprisal.    They  determined  that  the 
applicant’s  alleged  removal  from  the  position  and  subsequent 
reassignment  did  not  constitute  unfavorable  personnel  actions 
under  DoD  Directive  7050.06,  Military  Whistleblower  Protection, 
as they did not unfavorably affect her career.   
 
A resume of the applicant’s EPRs follows: 
 
      CLOSE-OUT DATE 
 
        24 Jul 2011 
        24 Jul 2010 
      **24 Jul 2009 
        24 Aug 2008 
        26 Sep 2007 
 
**Contested Report 
 
The  applicant  filed  an  appeal  through  the  Evaluations  Report 
Appeals  Board  (ERAB)  to  have  the  contested  report  replaced  due 
to  a  missing  signature.    The  ERAB  approved  the  request  and 
replaced the contested EPR with a signed version.  Although the 
ERAB granted the applicant’s request to replace the EPR due to a 
missing signature, she is now appealing the EPR on the basis of 
the  content/rating.    There  is  no  available  documentation 
indicating the applicant filed a subsequent appeal to ERAB.   
 

  OVERALL RATING 
   
   
   
   
   

5B 
5B 
5B 
5B 
5B 

 

 
 
3 

Examiners note:  The applicant requests all versions of her 2009 
EPR be voided and removed from her military records.  Subsequent 
to  a  review  of  the  documents  contained  in  the  AFPC  Automated 
Records  Management  (ARMS)  Database  there  is  only  one  official 
version  of  the  applicant’s  2009  EPR  on  file  in  her  Military 
Personnel Records.  A copy of the EPR is included under Exhibit 
B and is tabbed as “contested EPR.”   
 
________________________________________________________________ 
 
AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 
 
AFPC/DPSID  recommends  denial  of  the  request  to  void  the 
contested report.  DPSID states there is no compelling evidence 
to show the report was unjust or inaccurate as rendered.  They 
contend  the  evaluation  was  completed  within  all  regulatory  Air 
Force  requirements.    In  order  to  effectively  and  successfully 
challenge  the  validity  of  any  contested  evaluation,  it  is 
necessary to hear from all members of the rating chain, not only 
for  support,  but  also  for  clarification/explanation.    The 
applicant  has  not  provided  any  such  documentation  from  her 
rating  chain  within  this  appeal  that  would  substantiate  any  of 
her claims.  Additionally, the applicant has not proven that an 
injustice  occurred,  via  the  unsubstantiated  AMC  EO  complaint 
filed or the provided IG Report of Investigation, which found no 
culpability  on  the  part  of  those  accused  and  dismissed  the 
complaint. 
 
An  evaluation  report  is  considered  to  represent  the  rating 
chain’s  best  judgment  at  the  time  it  is  rendered.    We  contend 
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 C. 
 
AFPC/DPSOE defers to AFPC/DPSID’s recommendation to deny voiding 
the contested report.  DPSOE states the first time the contested 
report  was  used  in  the  promotion  process  was  during  the  June 
2011 Senior Noncommissioned Officer (SNCO) supplemental board to 
the  rank  of  Chief  Master  Sergeant  (CMSgt)  for  cycle  10E9.    It 
was  also  used  during  the  initial  CMSgt  Evaluation  Board  for 
cycle 11E9.  The applicant was rendered a nonselect during both 
cycles.   
 
The policy regarding the approval of SNCO supplemental promotion 
consideration  relevant  to  an  EPR  is  in  accordance  with  AFI  36-
2502,  Airman  Promotion  Program,  Table  2.5.,  and  HQ AFPC/DPP 
081945Z  Nov  00  Message,  effective  22  Oct  00.    Supplemental 

 

 
 
4 

General, 

she 

the 

promotion  consideration  is  granted  on  a  case-by-case  basis  for 
reasons  listed  in  Table  2.5.    A  member  will  not  normally  be 
granted  supplemental  consideration  if  the  error  or  omission 
appeared  on  his/her  Data  Verification  Record  (DVR)  or  in  the 
Unit  Personnel  Record  Group  (UPRG)  and  the  individual  did  not 
take  the  appropriate  corrective  or  follow-up  action  before  the 
original board convened.  The applicant filed an appeal through 
the  ERAB  on  13  May  2011,  to  have  the  report  replaced  due  to  a 
missing  signature.    The  ERAB  approved  her  request  on 
17 May 2011, and she subsequently met the June 2011 supplemental 
board.    The  applicant  did  not  file  an  appeal  through  the  ERAB 
for the current corrective action and states she discovered the 
error/injustice on 7 October 2011.  This was more than two years 
after the contested EPR closed out and almost one year after the 
results were released for cycle 10E9 (18 Nov 10).   
 
The complete AFPC/DPSOE evaluation is at Exhibit D. 
 
________________________________________________________________ 
 
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 
 
The  applicant  states  as  a  trained  and  certified  Installation 
Inspector 
DoD/IG’s 
“unsubstantiated”  findings  in  regard  to  her  Whistleblower 
Reprisal Investigation.  The 24 July 2009 EPR had to remain in 
her record until the investigation was complete or there was no 
basis for the investigation initiated in 2009.  She was informed 
by  the  DoD/IG  investigator  that  the  reprisal  investigation  and 
removal of the report would be conducted at the same time.  At 
some  point  in  the  investigation  the  case  was  given  to  another 
investigator and the EPR removal concern was never passed on to 
AFPC.  The investigation of her expedited PCS and reprisal were 
entirely  investigated  and  she  was  not  officially  informed  the 
investigation had even started.  Receipt of the final report in 
the mail was her notification.   
 
In  closing,  the  applicant  reiterates  her  contention  that  more 
than  one  version  of  the  contested  report  was  submitted  to  AFPC 
from either XXXXXX AFB or XXXXX AFB.  She further states there 
are  two  other  senior  leaders  whose  professional  careers  have 
suffered  or  ended  which  indicates  there  was  a  pattern  or 
sequence  of  events  that  support  her  claim  of  injustice  by  her 
previous leadership. 
 
The  applicant’s  complete  response  w/attachments,  is  at 
Exhibit F. 
 
________________________________________________________________ 
 
 
 

disagrees 

with 

 

 
 
5 

of 

the 

Air 

Force 

offices 

of 

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 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 opinions and the 
recommendations 
primary 
responsibility  and  adopt  their  rationale  as  the  basis  for  our 
conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of an error 
or injustice.  The applicant’s contentions that her contested EPR 
does not accurately reflect a true account of her performance and 
enforcement  of  standards,  that  her  rater  gave  her  deceptive 
feedback, and that a rating markdown in Section III, block 2, of 
the  EPR  was  in  reprisal  for  her  involvement  in  an  IG  complaint 
investigation,  are  duly  noted;  however,  we  do  not  find  the 
evidence  provided  is  sufficient  to  overcome  the  findings  of  the 
DoD  IG,  which  found  that  the  applicant’s  rater  did  not  reprise 
against her and that a preponderance of the evidence established 
that the rater gave the applicant the marked down EPR based upon 
performance  issues  identified  in  oral  and  written  performance 
feedback counseling sessions and would have taken the same action 
against  the  applicant  absent  her  protected  communications.  
Additionally,  we  are  also  in  agreement  with  the  findings  and 
recommendation of AFPC/DPSID and adopt the rationale expressed as 
an  additional  basis  for  our  determination  the  applicant  has  not 
been the victim of error or injustice.  In light of our finding 
regarding  the  contested  EPR,  the  applicant’s  request  for 
supplemental promotion consideration is also denied.  Therefore, 
in the absence of persuasive evidence to the contrary, we find no 
basis  to  recommend  granting  the  relief  sought  in  this 
application.   
 
4.  The  applicant  alleges  she  has  been  the  victim  of  reprisal.  
As  noted,  the  applicant’s  allegation  of  reprisal  was 
investigated by the DoD IG and found to be unsubstantiated.  The 
applicant  notes  that  as  a  “trained  and  certified  Installation 
Inspector 
DoD/IG’s 
“unsubstantiated”  finding  as  a  result  of  her  Whistleblower 
Reprisal Investigation.  As such, based on the authority granted 
to  this  board  pursuant  to  Title  10,  U.S.C.,  Section  1034,  we 
reviewed the complete evidence of record to determine whether we 
conclude  the  applicant  has  been  the  victim  of  reprisal.    As 
noted  above,  we  do  not  find  the  evidence  submitted  by  the 
applicant  sufficient  to  overcome  the  investigative  results  and 
final determination issued by the DoD IG.  Based on our review 
of  the  complete  evidence  of  record  and  the  complete  DoD  IG 

disagrees 

General,” 

she 

with 

 

 
 
6 

report,  in  our  view,  the  DoD  IG  investigation  appears  thorough 
and  the  final  determination  is  supported.    We  considered  the 
principal  argument  set  forth  by  the  applicant  that  the  final 
report  was  different  than  earlier  versions  that  had  been 
prepared  and  that  the  EPR  was  marked  down  only  after  she  had 
filed  complaints  against  her  rating  chain.    Again,  we  note  the 
DoD  IG  found  that  a  preponderance  of  the  evidence  established 
that the applicant’s EPR was marked down for performance issues.  
Even  if  the  EPR  was  changed,  we  are  not  persuaded  the  final 
report  rendered  was  not  a  fair  and  accurate  assessment  of  her 
performance  for  the  period  under  review.    Therefore,  the  Board 
does not find that the applicant has been the victim of reprisal 
pursuant to Title 10, U.S.C., Section 1034.   
 
5.  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  issue(s) 
involved.  Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorably 
considered. 
 
________________________________________________________________ 
 
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 
BC-2012-01393  in  Executive  Session  on  9  August  2012,  under  the 
provisions of AFI 36-2603: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Panel Chair 
Member 
Member 

 
 

 
 

 

 
 
7 

 
The following documentary evidence was considered: 
 
    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149 dated 15 March 2012, w/atchs. 
    Exhibit B.  Applicant’s Master Personnel Records. 
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPSID, dated 30 April 2012. 
    Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPSOE, dated 22 May 2012. 
    Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 4 June 2012. 
    Exhibit F.  Letter, Applicant, dated 29 June 2012, w/atchs. 
 
 
 
 
                                    
                                   Panel Chair 

 

 
 
8