AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

 
DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2012-02221 
 
COUNSEL:  NONE 
HEARING DESIRED: NO 

IN THE MATTER OF: 
   
   
 
   
 
________________________________________________________________ 
 
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 
 
1. All  actions  caused  by  his  placement  onto  the  Control  Roster 
on 20 August 2009 be corrected. 
 
2. His Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) with the close-out date 
of 19 August 2009 be voided and removed from his records. 
 
________________________________________________________________ 
 
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 
 
The  EPR  dated  19  August  2009  was  accomplished  with  malice  and 
callousness.  The EPR along with the control roster were used as 
a tool to inflict a punitive punishment and not as a record of 
performance  or  rehabilitation.    They  were  also  used  as  a  means 
to manipulate the Air Force assignment system.   
 
The Career Enlisted Aviator (CEA) functional manager offered him 
a  job  at  headquarters,  which  he  gladly  accepted.    His 
superintendent  was  angry  with  him  for  accepting  an  assignment 
after he approved an extension for him to stay on station.  His 
superintendent stated “I could stop it if I want to.”  
 
He  was  originally  questioned  about  an  alleged  unprofessional 
relationship  on  29  June  2009.    At  the  conclusion  of  the 
questioning,  his  superintendent’s  main  concern  was  contacting 
the CEA functional manager.  He was in limbo for 53 days between 
the  questioning  and  the  decision  to  put  him  on  the  control 
roster which originated the 19 August 2009 EPR.  He was banished 
to the back corner of another building.  During this time, there 
were  many  conversations  regarding  his  pending  assignment.    His 
assignment  was  cancelled  and  another  master  sergeant  from  his 
office  received  the  headquarters  assignment  that  he  was 
previously offered. 
 
During  this  time,  his  superintendent  pushed  the  commander  to 
place  him  on  a  control  roster  long  enough  to  cancel  the 
assignment  and  then  pull  it.    He  has  submitted  a  statement 
confirming this contention.  His superintendent’s true intention 
was  to  stop  his  assignment.    A  one-month  control  roster  would 
have raised questions, so he was on the control roster for five 
months.  While he was on the control roster, he never received 

counseling  as  stated  in  the  AFI.    His  former  flight  commander 
told him the control roster and referral EPR were used to cancel 
his assignment.   
 
He believes that his EPR was used to cancel his assignment and 
therefore,  it  should  be  voided  and  removed  from  his  records.  
One  of  the  Senior  NCO’s  involved  who  does  not  have  a  flying 
background was the only one willing to write down what happened.  
He referred to the handling of this situation as the “good ole 
boy  system.”    He  saw  how  unprofessional  the  others  handled  the 
situation  and  stated  that  is  why  he  left  first  sergeant  duty.  
He  also  wrote  that  the  alleged  circumstances  surrounding  the 
investigation were nothing more than a minor lapse in judgment, 
and  minor  lapses  in  judgment  do  not  rate  a  referral  EPR;  more 
along the lines of counseling. 
 
If  the  leadership  believed  he  was  having  an  unprofessional 
relationship,  he  should  have  received  an  Article  15  or  at  the 
very  least  been  counseled  on  29  June  2009,  to  change  the 
perceived behavior.  He was never given the chance to change any 
perceived  behavior.    He  never  supervised  the  airman  he  was 
accused of having a relationship with, nor was he in her rating 
chain.    He  believes  the  perception  was  blown  out  of  proportion 
due to office gossip.   
 
He  believes  that  he  was  singled  out,  treated  unjustly  and 
punished for being a fast burner.  His success led many of the 
leaders to believe he was not worthy of the success because he 
had not “done the time.”  The actions of his leadership during 
this  time  were  malicious  and  calculated.    At  no  time  was  the 
control roster enforced in the manner as set forth in the AFI.  
Not  only  was  he  subjected  to  judgment  before  the  official 
investigation was closed, these prejudicial statements were used 
against him to manipulate the system and influence his next duty 
station.  This injustice is the exact reason this EPR should be 
voided  and  all  administrative  actions  of  the  control  roster  be 
corrected.   
 
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 master sergeant (E-7).  The following is a resume 
of his EPR ratings: 
 
  RATING PERIOD 
   
 
 
 

PROMOTION RECOMMENDATION 

 
5 
5 
4 

 

 31 Aug 11 
 21 Jan 11 
 21 Jan 10 

2 

2 
5 
5 
5 
5 
5 
5 

*19 Aug 09 
 21 May 09 (MSgt) 
 21 May 08 
 15 Aug 07 
 15 Aug 06 
 15 Aug 05 (TSgt) 
 14 Dec 04 (SSgt) 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
* Contested Report 
 
________________________________________________________________ 
 
AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 
 
AFPC/DPSIM  recommends  denial.    The  applicant’s  commander 
initiated  control  roster  on  or  about  17  August  2009.    The 
applicant acknowledged receipt on or about 17 August 2009.  The 
commander placed him on a control roster on 20 August 2009 and 
removed him from the control roster on or about 22 January 2010.   
 
The  control  roster  is  a  rehabilitative  tool  designed  for 
commanders.    It  is  a  six-month  observation  period  for 
individuals whose duty performance is substandard or who fail to 
meet  or  maintain  Air  Force  standards  of  conduct,  bearing  and 
integrity, on or off duty.  
 
After  reviewing  the  applicant’s  request,  it  was  validated  that 
the  control  roster  was  processed  in  accordance  with  applicable 
guidelines. 
 
The complete DPSIM evaluation is at Exhibit C. 
 
AFPC/DPALT5  does  not  make  a  recommendation.    The  applicant  was 
selected  for  an  assignment  on  18  May  2009.    The  applicant  was 
placed on AAC 21 (commander’s hold) on 7 July 2009.  On 20 July 
2009, his report no later than date was changed to 15 December 
2009.    On  8 September  2009,  the  assignment  was  cancelled, 
without  explanation.    The  applicant  was  selected  for  another 
assignment on 12 March 2010.  
 
It  appears  the  applicant’s  assignment  was  inappropriately 
managed at the unit and MAJCOM level.  
 
The  complete  DPALT5  evaluation,  with  attachments,  is  at 
Exhibit D. 
 
AFPC/DPSID  recommends  denial.    The  applicant  filed  an  appeal 
through  the  Evaluation  Reports  Appeals  Board  (ERAB);  however, 
the  ERAB  was  not  convinced  that  the  report  was  unjust  or 
inaccurate and denied the applicant’s request. 
 
The  applicant  was  served  an  LOR  for  an  inappropriate 
relationship with a subordinate in the workplace and also placed 
on a control roster for this misconduct.  The applicant received 

3 

a  referral  EPR  as  a  result  and  also  chose  not  to  rebut  this 
report.    The  applicant  does  not  address  the  inappropriate 
relationship  itself,  or  provide  evidence  that  this  was 
inaccurate.   
 
It  appears  there  was  a  Commander  directed  inquiry  and  although 
the  applicant  submits  a  memorandum  from  security  forces 
investigations  stating  no  criminal  investigation  was  initiated, 
it does not negate the inquiry.  As a result of the inquiry, the 
commander issued an LOR with control roster action.  This action 
was  within  the  commander’s  authority  and  appropriate.    The 
commander chose to document this action in the permanent record.  
The applicant does not support his contention that these actions 
were used to cancel his assignment.  Additionally, the applicant 
provides no proof of rater misconduct, only his personal opinion 
based upon receiving a marked down referral report.  
 
AFI 36-2401, Correcting Officer and Enlisted Evaluation Systems, 
states  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.  Statements from 
the  evaluators  during  the  contested  evaluation  period  are 
conspicuously absent.  Without the benefit of these statements, 
we can only conclude that the EPR is accurate as written.  The 
applicant failed to provide any information or support from the 
rating  chain  of  record  on  the  contested  evaluation.    The 
applicant  provided  e-mail  correspondence  from  another  military 
member;  however,  that  member  was  not  in  his  rating  chain.    In 
consideration of the sum of the evidence presented, there is no 
basis to support the removal of the referral EPR as written. 
 
Air Force policy states that an evaluation report is accurate as 
written when it becomes a matter of record.  It is considered to 
represent  the  rating  chain’s  best  judgment  at  the  time  it  is 
rendered.    To  effectively  and  successfully  challenge  the 
validity  of  a  report,  it  is  necessary  to  hear  from  all  the 
members of the rating chain, not only for support, but also for 
clarification/explanation.    It  is  determined  that  this  report 
was  accomplished  in  direct  accordance  with  all  applicable 
guidelines and regulations.  Once a report is accepted for file, 
only  strong  evidence  warrants  correction  or  removal  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 complete DPSID evaluation is at Exhibit E. 
 
________________________________________________________________ 
 
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 
 
The applicant reiterates while the UIF was processed correctly, 
it was done with malice.  At that time, it was best that he not 

4 

rebut the EPR as he did not have evidence on why he believed he 
received the EPR.  He had been isolated for 52 days awaiting the 
commander’s  action.    He  felt  if  he  challenged  the  commander’s 
authority, he would impose greater actions against him.  As soon 
as  he  had  evidence  that  the  actions  were  used  to  cancel  his 
assignment, he started the appeal process. 
 
He spoke to his additional rater about this matter and was told 
to  stop  trying  to  prove  that  he  was  rated  incorrectly  or  he 
would take further action against him.  That is why there is no 
documentation  from  the  rater.    While  the  supporting  statement 
was from someone outside his chain, he was the first sergeant at 
the time and had firsthand knowledge of the situation.   
 
Additionally,  the  AFPC  functional  manager  stated  that  the 
assignment  was  inappropriately  manipulated  at  the  unit  and 
MAJCOM level.  This shows that his unit worked with headquarters 
to cancel his assignment.   
 
The actions of his rater and additional rater were not done in 
good  faith.    The  members  of  his  chain  of  command  abused  their 
authority  and  manipulated  the  system  to  maliciously  affect  his 
assignment. 
 
The applicant’s complete response is at Exhibit G. 
 
________________________________________________________________ 
 
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 
reviewing  all  of  the  evidence  provided,  we  are  not  persuaded 
that  the  contested  report  is  an  inaccurate  depiction  of  the 
applicant’s  performance  and  demonstrated  potential  for  the 
period  in  question.    In  the  rating  process,  each  evaluator  is 
required  to  assess  a  ratee’s  performance,  honestly  and  to  the 
best of their ability.  In judging the merits of this case, we 
took  note  of  the  applicant’s  contentions  that  the  contested 
report  was  accomplished  with  malice  and  callousness.    However, 
other than his own assertions, we have seen no evidence by the 
applicant  which  would  lead  us  to  believe  the  rater  abused  his 
discretionary  authority,  that  the  rating  was  based  on 
inappropriate considerations, or that the report was technically 
flawed.    We  took  note  of  AFPC/DPALT5  statement  that  the 
applicant’s 
inappropriately 
manipulated.    However,  it  is  not  uncommon  for  members  to  be 
placed on hold while under investigation; therefore, we find no 
impropriety  in  the  handling  of  his  assignment.    With  regard  to 

assignment 

been 

may 

have 

5 

the  applicant’s  placement  onto  the  Control  Roster,  as  a  result 
of the commander directed inquiry which revealed the applicant’s 
unprofessional  relationship,  the  commander  issued  an  LOR  with 
control  roster  action.    We  find  this  action  was  within  the 
commander’s  authority  and  do  not  find  that  his  actions  were 
arbitrary, capricious or done with malice.  Therefore, we agree 
with  the  opinions  and  recommendations  of  AFPC/DPSIM  and 
AFPC/DPSID  and  adopt  their  rationale  as  the  basis  for  our 
conclusion  that  the  applicant  has  not  been  the  victim  of  an 
error or injustice.  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  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-2012-02221  in  Executive  Session  on  15  February  2013 
under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: 
 
 
 
 
 
The  following  documentary  evidence  pertaining  to  BCMR  Docket 
Number BC-2012-02221 was considered: 
 
    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 4 April 12, w/atchs. 
    Exhibit B.  Applicant’s Master Personnel Record. 
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPSIM, dated 13 Jul 12. 
    Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPALT5, dated 20 Sep 12, w/atch. 
    Exhibit E.  Letter, AFPC/DPSID, dated 13 Dec 12 
    Exhibit F.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 21 Dec 12. 
    Exhibit G.  Applicant’s Response, dated 9 Jan 13. 
 
 
 
 
                                    
                                   Panel Chair 
 
 
 

, Panel Chair 
, Member 
, Member 

  
  
  

 
 
 

6