RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 

IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-02557 

 COUNSEL: NONE 

 HEARING DESIRED: NO 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

 

His AF Form 911, Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) (MSgt thru 
CMSgt), rendered for the period 3 May 08 thru 2 May 09 be 
declared void and removed from his records. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

 

His rater did not provide him with a mid-term feedback and there 
is evidence to support that a personality conflict existed 
between him and his rater. 

 

The memorandums prepared by two of his senior leaders acknowledge 
there was a personality conflict between him and his immediate 
supervisor, and as a result he was moved to a different office. 

 

He asked for feedback and notified his chain-of-command that he 
was not provided feedback. 

 

The evidence shows that: 1) his rater failed to comply with AFI 
36-2406, Officer and Enlisted Evaluation Systems, paragraph 
2.2.2, and was counseled for it; 2) a personality conflict was 
present during the rating period and he was not given a proper 
evaluation; and 3) He was not properly counseled that his 
performance was lacking and needed improvement because he was not 
provided a proper performance feedback. 

 

He worked directly for his rater from 3 May 08 until 
approximately 31 Aug 08, during the remainder of the rating 
period, he worked in J1 from 1 Sep 08 until mid Apr 09, and in 
J2 from Apr 02 –Sep 09. 

 

In support of his request, the applicant provides a personal 
statement, copies of his EPR, and memorandums for record from his 
senior level evaluator and supervisors, 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 
master sergeant (MSgt). 

 

The following is a profile of the applicant’s last 10 EPRs: 

 

 PERIOD ENDING OVERALL RATING 

 

 2 May 11 5 

 2 May 10 5 

 * 2 May 09 4 

 2 May 08 5 

 30 Jun 07 5 

 1 Dec 06 5 

 1 Dec 05 5 

 18 Apr 05 4 

 18 Apr 04 5 

 18 Apr 03 5 

 18 Apr 02 5 

 

* Contested Report 

 

The applicant filed an appeal through the Evaluation Report 
Appeals Board (ERAB) under the provisions of AFI 36-2401, Correcting Officer and Enlisted Evaluation Reports. The ERAB 
considered the applicant’s appeal and was not convinced the 
report was unjust or inaccurate and denied his request for 
relief. 

 

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 there is no evidence 
that the report is unjust or inaccurate as originally rendered. 

 

A review of the contested EPR does show that a mid-term feedback 
was not conducted. Air Force policy requires an initial feedback 
within 60 days of starting supervision and a midterm 
approximately at the halfway point between the initial feedback 
and the close-out date of the report. IAW AFI 36-2406, it is the 
ratee’s responsibility to notify the rater, and if necessary the 
rater’s rater, when a required or requested feedback did not take 
place. 

 

The applicant provides no evidence in his appeal that he 
attempted to obtain a mid-term feedback as of the close-out date 
of the contested report from any member of his rating chain. 
While current Air Force policy requires performance feedback for 


personnel, a correlation between information provided during 
feedback sessions and the assessments on evaluation reports does 
not necessarily exist. 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. Lack of counseling or feedback, by itself, is 
not sufficient to challenge the accuracy or justness of a report. 

 

If the applicant believed he was the victim of any unfair 
treatment by his rater, and that any unfair treatment may have 
negatively influenced the report, he should have initiated an 
Inspector General (IG) or Military Equal Opportunity and 
Treatment (EOT) complaint. The applicant did not provide any 
evidence that he pursued any of these actions or provide any 
findings in his favor. 

 

In worker-supervisor relationships, some disagreements are likely 
to occur since a worker must abide by a supervisor’s policies and 
decisions. To make an effective case that an evaluator was 
unfavorably biased, the applicant must cite specific examples of 
the conflict or bias and provide firsthand 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. 

 

The memorandum from his higher level evaluator on the contested 
report, does indicate that there was an existing personality 
conflict, but does not state in any way this contributed to a 
biased and non-objective assessment by the rater. Moreover, he 
has confirmed his agreement of the ratings given by the rater, 
and has not indicated any change in his position regarding this 
issue. His final review of the contested evaluation and 
subsequent agreement with the ratings given by the rater serves 
as a final “check and balance” in order to ensure the report was 
given in fair consideration IAW the established intent of the 
current Officer and Enlisted Evaluation System in place. In the 
absence of any evidence of unfair treatment or injustice, DPSID 
finds that the ratings were given fairly and IAW all Air Force 
policies and procedures. 

 

The applicant has provided information from the additional rater 
of record, but this information does not support his contentions 
and was not germane to his overall appeal. 

 

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 defers to the recommendation of DPSID regarding the 
removal of the report and its validity. DPSOE states that should 
the Board void the report as requested, they could direct the 
applicant be provided supplemental consideration beginning with 
cycle 10E8. 

 

DPSOE states the first time the contested report was used in the 
promotion process was during cycle 10E8 to Senior Master Sergeant 
(SMSgt). It has also been used during cycles 11E8 and 12E8. The 
applicant was rendered a nonselect for all three cycles. 

 

The complete DPSOE evaluation is at Exhibit C. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

On 11 Sep 12, copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded 
to the applicant for review and comment within 30 days. To date, 
a response has not been received (Exhibit D). 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

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 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 that 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 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 Docket Number 
BC-2012-02557 in Executive Session on 26 Feb 12, under the 
provisions of AFI 36-2603: 

 

 , Panel Chair 

 , Member 

 , Member 

 

The following documentary evidence was considered: 

 

 Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 12 Jun 12, w/atchs. 

 Exhibit B. Letter, AFPC/DPSID, 6 Aug 12. 

 Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPSOE, dated 22 Aug 12. 

 Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 11 Sep 12. 

 

 

 

 

 Acting Panel Chair