RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 

IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-03555 

 COUNSEL: NONE 

 HEARING DESIRED: NO 

 

 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

 

1. Her Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) with a closeout date of 
1 Sep 11 be voided and removed from her records. 

 

2. She be given supplemental scoring for testing cycle 13E7 for 
promotion to master sergeant. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

 

1. During the reporting period in question she did not receive an 
initial feedback within the first 60 days of supervision. The 
first feedback session was given on 28 Feb 11; however, during 
the session her supervisor realized that the feedback was from 
another non-commissioned officer’s (NCOs) feedback session. The 
supervisor rescheduled the feedback session for 7 Mar 11. The 
initial feedback session should have happened in December 2010 
with a mid-term session scheduled for June 2011 to allow time to 
make corrections, as necessary. 

 

2. She was never told that her duty performance was substandard 
She believes her evaluation was based on another technical 
sergeant’s merits; this individual had 4-5 years more time in 
service. She did not agree with her rating and did some research 
to see how she could get the report changed or removed from her 
records. 

 

3. She provides an NCO EPR to show that several bullets of both 
reports are similar. 

 

4. She was reassigned to the Total Force Service Center in August 
2011 and was not given enough time to be appropriately evaluated 
in her job performance (as a leader, mentor, or a follower). 

 

Her complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

 

 

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 


 

The applicant is currently serving on active duty in the Regular 
Air Force in the grade of technical sergeant. 

 

The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are 
contained in the letters prepared by the appropriate offices of 
the Air Force, which is at Exhibit C and D. 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

AFPC/DPSID recommends denial. Although the applicant contends 
the she did not receive an initial feedback within the first 
60 days and that a mid-term feedback session never occurred, she 
provides a copy of the initial feedback form, dated 7 Mar 11, 
that was signed by the rater and ratee. Only the evaluator can 
confirm whether a mid-term feedback took place; however, informal 
feedback appears to have taken place either daily or weekly. 

 

The governing instructions states that “the most effective 
evidence consists of statements from the evaluators who signed 
the report or from other individuals in the rating chain when the 
report was signed.” However, statements from the evaluators 
during the contested period are conspicuously missing. Without 
the benefit of reviewing these statements, DPSID can only 
conclude the EPR is accurate as written. The applicant did 
provide a copy of email communications; however, it is not in 
support of her appeal as the rater states in the email that she 
stands by her rating of the applicant’s performance during the 
period in question. 

 

The applicant has failed to provide any significant evidence to 
prove her assertions that a lack of feedback caused an unfair or 
unjust assessment. Further, negative factors do not need to be 
present in order to receive a “4” or “Above Average” rating as 
this signifies performance is above the established standards. 

 

The complete DPSID evaluation is at Exhibit C. 

 

APFC/DPSOE addresses the supplemental promotion consideration 
issue. If the Board grants the applicant’s request to void the 
contested report, there is no need for supplemental consideration 
because there would be sufficient time to update the promotion 
file. Promotion selections for this cycle will be accomplished 
in May 2013. 

 

The complete DPSOE evaluation is at Exhibit D. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

 

 

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 


 

The applicant reiterates her previous contentions and provides a 
memorandum from her Team Lead during the contested reporting 
period. She also attempted to contact her additional rater for 
additional information regarding the contested reporting period 
but was unable to receive a response. 

 

The applicant’s complete submission, 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. After a thorough 
review of the evidence and the applicant’s submission, we are not 
persuaded the requested relief should be granted. Her contentions 
are duly noted, however, we do not find these assertions, in and 
of themselves, sufficiently persuasive to override the rationale 
provided by the Air Force offices of primary responsibility. 
Furthermore, we are not persuaded by the evidence provided that 
the contested report is not a true and accurate assessment of her 
performance and demonstrated potential during the specified time 
period. Thus, 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 AFBCMR Docket 
Number BC-2012-03555 in Executive Session on 7 May 13, under the 
provisions of AFI 36-2603: 

 


 , Vice Chair 

 , Member 

 , Member 

 

The following documentary evidence was considered: 

 

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

 Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPSID, dated 17 Sep 12. 

 Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/DPSOE, dated 5 Oct 12. 

 Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 23 Oct 12. 

 Exhibit F. Letter, Applicant, dated 21 Nov 12. 

 

 

 

 

 

 Vice Chair