RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 

IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-02734 

 

 COUNSEL: NONE 

 

 HEARING DESIRED: YES 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

 

His Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) with the close-out date of 
15 January 2011 be removed from his records. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

 

The EPR was not a fair and impartial assessment of his 
performance. There are substantial inconsistencies and 
violations of AFI 36-2406, Officer and Enlisted Evaluation 
Systems. 

 

On 18 November 2010, his rater was removed to prevent possible 
retaliation and he was assigned a new rater. Yet, Section V of 
the EPR shows the EPR feedback date as 28 September 2010. This 
feedback was conducted by the same rater that was removed. His 
new rater never conducted a feedback. When his original rater 
was removed, a mandatory comment should have been entered in 
Section V. Additionally, his new rater did not meet the 
required number of days of supervision to accomplish the EPR. 

 

The official change of rater was not submitted to the Force 
Support Squadron until 25 February 2011; 97 days after the 
appointment and 4 days after the close-out of his EPR. His new 
rater was flagged as having less than 120 days of supervision. 
A timely reporting of change of rater (COR) did not occur in 
accordance with the AFI. 

 

The new rater used the performance feedback of the removed rater 
to determine his rating. The consideration of this feedback in 
violation of AFI 36-2406 which states certain items are 
inappropriate for consideration in the evaluation process and 
may not be commented on the evaluation form i.e. conduct based 
on unreliable information. Additionally, actions taken by 
individuals outside the normal chain that represent guaranteed 
rights of appeal, such as Inspector General and congressional 
inquiry. 

 

He understands that a single error does not invalidate an EPR; 
however, his rater and additional rater did not comply with the 


AFI to ensure a fair, accurate and impartial EPR. This EPR was 
false and included errors. 

 

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 staff sergeant. 

 

On or about 28 September 2010, he filed a complaint with the 
Office of the Inspector General (IG) alleging that his commander 
failed to investigate his allegation of Fraud, Waste and Abuse 
(FWA). The IG met with the Air Force Office of Investigations 
(AFOSI) regarding his claims. AFOSI investigated the 
complaints; however, the allegations were not substantiated. 
The complaint was closed on 1 November 2010. 

 

On 23 August 2011, the applicant filed a complaint with the 
Inspector General alleging his division chief marked down his 
EPR in reprisal for the FWA complaint. The IG examined the 
facts and on 12 April 2012, notified the applicant that the 
responsible management official did not reprise against him or 
abuse their authority. The IG recommended the allegation be 
dismissed. 

 

On 11 June 2012, the Evaluation Report Appeals Board (ERAB) 
notified the applicant that after considering his application, 
they were not convinced the contested EPR was unjust or wrong. 
They did, however, administratively correct the EPR by adding a 
comment in Section V. The contested EPR was removed from his 
records and replaced with the ERAB corrected report. 

 

The following is a resume of his EPR ratings: 

 

 RATING PERIOD PROMOTION RECOMMENDATION 

 

 15 Jan 13 5 

 15 Jan 12 5 

 *15 Jan 11 4 

 15 Jan 10 (SSgt) 5 

 15 Jan 09 (SrA) 5 

 15 Jan 08 5 

 15 Jan 07 5 

 15 Jan 06 (AIC) 5 

 

* Contested Report 

 

 

 

 


AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

AFPC/DPSID recommends denial. The applicant filed an appeal 
through the Evaluation Reports Appeals Board (ERAB); however, 
the appeal was denied. 

 

The applicant contends that the date of the recorded feedback, 
28 September 2010, was improper as the rater who conducted that 
feedback was removed on 18 November 2010. The new rater assumed 
the rater duties and rendered the report on 15 January 2011, 
shortly thereafter. The recorded feedback date merely reflects 
the feedback by the original rater prior to the assumption of 
rating duties. 

 

The second allegation expands the first allegation and contends 
the new rater improperly used a prior feedback. The action was 
not a change of rater, but removal of rater and the feedback 
date as recorded was valid for use in the contested EPR. 

 

The applicant also contends that a mandatory comment was missing 
from Section V of the EPR. The ERAB administratively corrected 
the EPR by adding “the rater was removed from the rating chain 
effective 18 November 2010.” 

 

The applicant states the number of supervision days as reflected 
(365) is inaccurate as his new rater did not assume rating 
duties until 18 November 2010. The assumption of duties, as 
opposed to starting new responsibilities does not restart the 
clock. 

 

He also contends that the change of rating official was not 
timely and the action took place after the close-out of his EPR. 
The CRO update was not timely. The CRO action was taken to 
correct a deficiency in his evaluation record, the result of 
which corrected the MILPDS record so that is was accurate and in 
agreement with the already closed out EPR. This discrepancy 
does not provide a valid reason to void the entire report. 

 

The applicant further contends that the new rater used the 
performance feedback from this original rater to determine his 
EPR rating. The applicant inappropriately cites AFI 36-2406 
para 3.7.7 which references rater comments on unreliable 
information. He does not provide any supporting evidence to 
support that any unreliable information, to include his 
feedback, was used by the rating chain in preparation of the 
contested EPR. The rating chain is in the best position to 
determine the relevancy of any written matters they may have 
considered when preparing this report. Without input from these 
evaluators, it is not possible to determine what the rating 
chain did or did not consider. Therefore, the assumption is 
that any comments and or ratings reflected on the contested EPR 
are fair, accurate and in accordance with all published Air 
Force policies. 

 


The applicant also contends that the contested EPR portrays that 
his newly appointed rater conducted 365 full days of 
supervision. When an additional rater assumes the raters 
responsibility, the entire period of supervision carries over 
and the clock does not restart. In this case, the assumption of 
the rating responsibility caused the period of supervision to 
reflect for the entire calendar year of the annual report. 

 

The most effective evidence to rebut an evaluation consists of 
statements from the evaluators who signed the report or from 
other individuals in the rating chain when the report was 
signed. Without the benefit of these statements, it can only be 
assumed that the EPR is accurate as written. To effectively 
challenge an EPR, it is necessary to hear from all members of 
the chain – not only for support, but for 
clarification/explanation. In the absence of information from 
evaluators, official substantiation of error or injustice from 
the IG or Military Equal Opportunity and Treatment is 
appropriate, but not provided in this case. Again, in the 
absence of such evidence from the applicant, there is no valid 
justification for removing this contested EPR from his permanent 
evaluation record. 

 

An evaluation report is considered to represent the rating 
chain’s best judgment at the time it is rendered. Only strong 
evidence warrants correction or removal of a performance report 
from an individual’s record. The burden of proof is on the 
applicant. He has not substantiated the contested report was 
not rendered in good faith by all evaluators based on the 
knowledge available at the time. The applicant has not provided 
evidence that the report is inaccurate or unjust. 

 

The complete DPSID evaluation is at Exhibit C. 

 

AFPC/DPSOE defers recommendation to AFPC/DPSID. The first time 
the contested report was used in the promotion process was 
during cycle 12E6 to technical sergeant. Should the Board 
remove the contested report, the applicant would be entitled to 
supplemental promotion consideration. It would, however, serve 
no useful purpose as his total score would not increase 
significantly enough to meet the promotion cutoff score required 
for selection for promotion. The applicant’s total score was 
291.08. The required score for selection for promotion was 
320.16; a difference of 29.08 points. Removing the contested 
report would increase his weighed score by 6.75 points. 

 

The complete DPSOE evaluation is at Exhibit D. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

The applicant contests several statements made by the advisory 
writer. He states his position to have the contested report 


removed is based solely on the failure to adhere to the Air 
Force Instruction. He was not provided feedback to justify a 
markdown from the overall rating of “truly among the best.” The 
only feedback given was from the rater that was removed. 

 

He has provided specific inconsistencies with cited references 
from the AFI, accompanied with substantiated documentation to 
reinforce his position that the EPR was handled outside of Air 
Force standards. The Air Force Personnel Center’s assertion 
that the EPR is valid is not substantiated. They did not cite 
any Air Force instruction supporting their claim the contested 
EPR was conducted within Air Force standards. 

 

He understands the burden of proof rests with the individual. 
He has provided email traffic from his chain outlining their 
refusal to correct his EPR. He also asked his chain to provide 
justification/explanation about the EPR. The chain has declined 
to provide this supporting documentation. 

 

His appeal to have this EPR removed is not because he disagrees 
with the rating. It is on the basis of the governing guidelines 
to safeguard against improper, inaccurate and unfair practices 
during the evaluation process which was not followed. 

 

The applicant’s complete response, with attachments, is at 
Exhibit F 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

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 opinion and recommendation 
of AFPC/DPSID and adopt its rationale as the basis for our 
conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of an 
error or injustice. Additionally, since we find no basis to 
remove the contested EPR from the applicant’s record, we find no 
basis to consider supplemental promotion consideration. While 
we note the applicant’s arguments that the contested EPR was not 
accomplished in accordance with governing policy, in our view 
the administrative correction effected by the ERAB resolved the 
error made in the report and the report does, in fact, meet the 
requirements of AFI 36-2401. Therefore, in the absence of 
evidence to the contrary, we find no compelling basis to 
recommend granting the relief sought in this application. 

 


4. 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 issues involved. 
Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorably 
considered. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

THE BOARD RECOMMENDS 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-2012-02734 in Executive Session on 26 March 2013 under 
the provisions of AFI 36-2603: 

 

 Panel Chair 

 Member 

 Member 

 

The following documentary evidence was considered: 

 

 Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 15 Jun 12, w/atchs. 

 Exhibit B. Applicant’s Master Personnel Records. 

 Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPSID, dated 4 Sep 12. 

 Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/DPSOE, dated 14 Sep 12. 

 Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 5 Nov 12. 

 Exhibit E. Applicant’s Response, dated 3 Jan 13, w/atchs. 

 

 

 

 

 

 Panel Chair