RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 

IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-03800 

 

 COUNSEL: NONE 

 

 HEARING DESIRED: NO 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

 

Her Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) with the close-out date of 
31 March 2012 be removed from her records. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

 

She was served a Letter of Counseling (LOC) that was not 
properly written. The LOC was placed in her personnel 
information file against her rights. She was served another LOC 
for not completing her upgrade training in a timely manner; 
however, this was false. She completed all required tasks and 
passed her end of course test. 

 

She was marked as “does not meet” in section III, Block 1 of the 
EPR. However, she was signed-off and attained her 7-level in a 
timely manner. She received her mid-term feedback a month and 
two weeks before the close-out of the EPR and was deployed at 
that time. 

 

The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at 
Exhibit A. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 

 

The applicant is a former member of the Air Force who served 
from 4 January 2001 through 19 November 2012. 

 

She received a Letter of counseling on 6 May 2011 for lack of 
initiative and motivation regarding her duties. On 28 August 
2011, she received a Letter of Counseling for failing her 
fitness assessment for the second time in less than two years. 
On 26 September 2011, she received a Letter of Reprimand (LOR) 
for dereliction of duty. On 21 October 2011, a Memorandum for 
Record (MFR) was generated to record the applicant’s failure to 
appear for mandatory physical training (PT). 

 

On 6 April 2012, the applicant was notified of her supervisor’s 
intent to refer her EPR due to the “does not meet” in section 


III, block 1 and a derogatory comment in section III, block 6. 
The applicant responded to the referral EPR on 16 April 2012. 
The commander concurred with the referral EPR on 19 April 2012. 

 

The following is a resume of her EPR ratings: 

 

 RATING PERIOD PROMOTION RECOMMENDATION 

 

 *31 Mar 12 3 

 31 Mar 11 4 

 31 Mar 10 (SSgt) 4 

 31 Mar 09 5 

 31 Mar 08 5 

 9 Apr 07 4 

 9 Apr 06 3 

 9 Apr 05 5 

 9 Apr 04 (SrA) 4 

 4 Sep 02 (A1C) 5 

* Contested Report 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

AFPC/DPSIM recommends the LOC dated 6 May 2011 be removed from 
her records. AFI 36-2907, Unfavorable Information File, states 
that commanders, supervisors and other persons in authority can 
issue administrative counseling, admonitions and reprimands. 
These actions are intended to improve, correct and instruct 
subordinates whose actions degrade the individuals and the units 
mission. Raters must consider making comments on performance 
reports when the ratee receives any adverse actions. 

 

It further states if administering written counseling, 
admonitions or reprimands, the letter should state what the 
member did or failed to do, citing specific incidents and the 
dates; what improvement is expected; that further deviation may 
result in more severe action; and the individual has 3 duty days 
to submit rebuttal documents for consideration by the initiator. 
All supporting documentation received from the individual 
becomes part of the record of counseling, admonishment or 
reprimand. The initiator will then have 3 duty days to advise 
the individual of their final decision regarding any comments 
submitted by the individual. 

 

The initiator of the 6 May 2011 LOC was within their authority 
to administer the LOC; however, they failed to administer the 
LOC as prescribed within the AFI by not allowing the applicant 
3 duty days to submit rebuttal documents for consideration. 

The complete DPSIM evaluation is at Exhibit C. 

 

AFPC/DPSID recommends denial. The applicant did not file an 
appeal through the Evaluation Reports Appeals Board (ERAB). 

 


The applicant contends that the contested referral EPR was 
unjust based on an LOC comment. She asserts the LOC was not 
written properly and was placed in her personnel information 
file. The applicant provided copies of two LOCs, one MFR and 
one LOR that she received during the contested reporting period. 
AFPC/DPSIM has opined the LOC dated 6 May 2011 was not processed 
in accordance with AFI 36-2907. The 6 May 2011 LOC states the 
applicant received an additional LOC on 15 February 2011 for 
security clearance paperwork and 23 February 2011 for upgrade 
training infractions. However, the 15 and 23 February 2011 LOCs 
are irrelevant to this application as the dates are not within 
the contested rating period. 

 

Thus the comment on the contested EPR stating the applicant 
“received 1 MFR/1 LOC/ 1 LOR by flight leadership” states 
exactly what happened. It is safe to affirm that the EPR 
referenced the 21 October 2011 MFR, the 28 August 2011 LOC, and 
the LOR dated 26 September 2011 as they were all procedurally 
correct and in accordance with Air Force policy and 
instructions. Therefore, the referral comment on the contested 
EPR was appropriately mentioned. 

 

The applicant also contends she did not receive her midterm 
feedback until a month and two weeks before the close-out of her 
EPR. Although she received her midterm a month and a half prior 
to close-out of the EPR, she received several counseling’s 
throughout the rating period. Counseling in itself is a form of 
feedback. Additionally, the applicant signed the EPR 
acknowledging that feedback was accomplished during the 
reporting period. While documented feedback sessions are 
required, they do not replace informal day-to-day feedback. A 
rater’s failure to conduct a required or requested feedback or 
failure to document the feedback on a Performance Feedback 
Worksheet does not invalidate a report. In this case, the 
applicant provided an AF Form 931, documenting in writing that 
she did not meet standards in the primary/additional duties 
block; it may have been untimely, however, she was afforded the 
opportunity to improve and progress until the report close-out 
or address any issues related to the reason for not meeting 
standards. Consequently, this aspect of the applicant’s appeal 
is without merit. 

 

If the applicant believes she was the victim of an unfair report 
and the report negatively affected future promotion/career 
opportunities, she should have initiated an Inspector General or 
Military Equal Opportunity and Treatment complaint. There is no 
evidence that she pursued any of these actions. The final 
review of the contested EPR was accomplished by the additional 
rater and a subsequent review by the commander as a final “check 
and balance” in order to ensure the report was given fair 
consideration in accordance with the established intent of the 
Officer and Enlisted Evaluation system. In absence of evidence 
of an unfair or biased report based on its content, the final 


rating was given fairly and in accordance with Air Force 
policies and procedures. 

 

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. Such evidence from 
the rating chain could have shed light on these matters, as 
such, there was no justification submitted to justify removal of 
this report from her permanent evaluation record. The applicant 
failed to provide any information or support from the rating 
chain of record on the contested report. Additionally, other 
than her personal opinions and unsupported allegations, she has 
provided no valid basis to support the removal of the contested 
EPR. 

 

Air Force policy dictates 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. She 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 as written. 

 

The complete DPSID evaluation is at Exhibit D. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the 
applicant on 3 May 2013 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 actionable error or injustice. The 
applicant's complete submission was thoroughly reviewed and her 
contentions were duly noted. However, we do not find the 
applicant’s assertions and the documentation presented in 
support of her appeal sufficiently persuasive to override the 


rationale provided by AFPC/DPSID. Therefore, we agree with 
their opinion and recommendation and adopt their rationale as 
the basis for our conclusion that the applicant has not been the 
victim of an error or injustice. Additionally, we note 
AFPC/DPSIM’s recommendation to remove the 6 May 2011 Letter of 
Counseling (LOC) from the applicant’s record. While we agree 
the LOC was improperly written, once the applicant separated 
from the Air Force, that record was destroyed and is not 
maintained in her master personnel file. Therefore, no further 
action with respect to the LOC is available. In the absence of 
evidence to the contrary, we find no basis to recommend granting 
the relief sought in this application. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: 

 

The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not 
demonstrate the existence of actionable 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-2012-03800 in Executive Session on 6 June 2013 under 
the provisions of AFI 36-2603: 

 

 Panel Chair 

 Member 

 Member 

 

The following documentary evidence was considered: 

 

 Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 20 Aug 12, w/atchs. 

 Exhibit B. Applicant’s Master Personnel Records. 

 Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPSIM, dated 19 Apr 13. 

 Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/DPSID, dated 22 Apr 13. 

 Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 3 May 13. 

 

 

 

 

 Panel Chair