RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 

IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-02987 

 COUNSEL: NONE 

 HEARING DESIRED: NO 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

 

Her AF Form 911, Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) (MSgt thru 
CMSgt), rendered for the period 19 Feb 11 thru 7 Jul 11, be 
declared void and removed from her records. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

 

In a four-page statement the applicant presents the following 
major contentions: 

 

1. She was notified the 693rd Intelligence, Surveillance and 
Reconnaissance Group Commander (693 ISRG/CC) had directed she be 
removed from her current position as the Mission Support Flight 
Superintendent and be placed under the direct supervision of the 
693 ISRG/CC because the position required someone that was 
focused on the mission and people during a time of war. 

 

2. During the contested EPR reporting period she was not sure 
who her actual supervisor and rater were. She was undergoing a 
medical evaluation board (MEB) for inflammatory bowel disease, 
status-post ilealplasty chronic abdominal pain, and status post 
lysis of adhesions major depressive disorder-moderate 

 

3. Her rater had an insufficient number of days supervision to 
render a report because of her frequent absences from the unit 
(98 days) during the rating period, due to hospitalization, 
leave (convalescent, emergency and ordinary), as well as normal 
weekend and holiday passes. Some of the absences were for more 
than 30 consecutive days in length. 

 

4. She never received any performance feedback or counseling 
from her rating chain during the reporting period due to the 
vagueness of who her actual supervisor was. 

 

5. The EPR was the result of her rating chain reprising against 
her for filing an Article 138, Uniform Code of Military Justice 
(UCMJ) action and an Inspector General (IG) complaint against 
her additional rater and another service member. 

 

 

 


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 senior master sergeant (SMSgt). 

 

On 26 Apr 11, the applicant filed a complaint with the 86th 
Airlift Wing Inspector General (86 AW/IG) alleging the 
693 ISRG/CC removed her from her position as the 693 ISRG 
Superintendent, as a reprisal for her conversation with the 
480 ISR Wing/Command Chief (480 ISRW/CCC) on 29 Mar 11. 

 

In accordance with (IAW) 90-301, Inspector General Complaints, 
the 480 ISRW/IG reviewed the complaint and determined the 
allegations of reprisal should be dismissed; there was no 
evidence of abuse of authority, and that further inquiry or 
investigation under Title 10 United States Code (USC), 1034 was 
not warranted. The case was formally referred to the AF ISR 
Agency IG’s office who, in turn, reviewed the case and 
transferred it to the Secretary of the Air Force (SAF) IG 
(SAF/IG). The SAF/IG, in turn, reviewed the case and referred 
it to the Department of Defense (DoD)/IG office. 

 

On 4 Jul 11, the applicant submitted a DoD Hotline complaint via 
email. In this complaint, the applicant alleges that since the 
submission of the IG complaint in Apr 11, she believes an 
unauthorized disclosure of that complaint was made to her 
commander and that adverse personnel actions were taken against 
her. 

 

On 13 Jul 11, the DoD/IG office completed their review of the 
applicant’s reprisal case and determined that there was no 
evidence of reprisal/abuse of authority. The DoD/IG stated that 
an investigation into the allegations of reprisal is not 
warranted under 10 USC 1034, and the case was closed. 

 

On 29 Jul 11, the applicant was notified of the DoD/IG’s 
decision. 

 

On 19 Jan 12, the DoD/IG completed their review of the 
applicant’s complaint dated 4 Jul 11, and determined that there 
was no evidence of reprisal by her former commander. The DoD/IG 
stated that an investigation into the allegations of reprisal 
were not warranted under 10 USC 1034 and the case was closed. 

 

On 19 Mar 12, the applicant was notified of the DoD/IG’s 
decision. 

 

On 14 Sep 12, the AF ISR Agency/IGQ reviewed the applicant’s 
complaint dated 3 Jan 12 and determined the allegation did not 


meet the definition of reprisal under 10 USC 1034. In 
considering the abuse of authority/abuse of power and unfair 
treatment by the commander, AF ISR/IGQ concluded the commander’s 
actions were appropriate considering the applicant’s performance 
and conduct. Further, AF ISR/IGQ noted the allegations of 
unfair treatment, reprisal/abuse of authority have been reviewed 
in previous IG complaints, on multiple occasions and at all 
levels to include SAF/IG and DoD/IG, and each time, the findings 
have been found not substantiated 

 

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 her 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 of the applicant’s request to 
remove the contested EPR. DPSID states that Air Force policy is 
that an evaluation report is accurate as written when it becomes 
a matter of record. Additionally, it is considered to represent 
the rating chain’s best judgment at the time it is rendered. To 
effectively challenge an evaluation, it is necessary to hear 
from all the members of the rating chain, not only for support, 
but also for clarification/explanation. The applicant has 
failed to provide any information/support from either the rater 
or additional rater on the contested evaluation. DPSID 
determined the report was accomplished in direct accordance with 
applicable regulations. DPSID contends that once a report is 
accepted for file, only strong evidence to the contrary warrants 
correction or removal from an individual’s record. 

 

Based upon the lack of corroborating evidence provided by the 
applicant and the administrative sufficiency pertaining to the 
IG complaint findings, there is no compelling evidence to show 
that the report is unjust or inaccurate as written. 

 

The complete DPSID evaluation is at Exhibit C. 

 

AFPC/DPSOE defers to the recommendation of DPSID regarding the 
removal of the report and its validity. DPSOE states should the 
Board void the report as requested; they could direct the 
applicant be provided supplemental consideration for cycle 11E9. 
The next senior noncommissioned officer (SNCO) supplemental 
board is scheduled to convene in Jun 13. Should the applicant 
become a select, she would incur a three-year active duty 


service commitment (ADSC) from the date of pin-on. Since the 
applicant has been approved for retirement effective 1 Feb 13, 
she would need to petition the Board to waive the ADSC or be 
returned to active duty. 

 

The complete DPSOE evaluation is at Exhibit D. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the 
applicant on 23 Oct 12, for review and comment within 30 days 
(Exhibit E). 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 an error or injustice to warrant the 
removal of the contested EPR from her records. We took careful 
notice of the applicant's complete submission in judging the 
merits of the case; however, we agree with the opinion and 
recommendation of DPSID and adopt its rationale as the basis for 
our conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of an 
error or injustice. We do not find her assertions, in and by 
themselves, sufficiently persuasive in this matter. Additionally, 
we are not persuaded that the contested report is not a true and 
accurate assessment of her demonstrated potential during the 
specified time period or that the comments contained in the report 
are in error or contrary to the provisions of the governing 
instruction. Therefore, in the absence of persuasive evidence to 
the contrary, we find no basis to recommend granting the relief 
sought in this application. 

 

4. The applicant alleges she has been the victim of reprisal and 
has not been afforded full protection under the Whistleblower 
Protection Act (10 USC § 1034). We note, the applicant filed 
several IG complaints; however, SAF/IG, DoD/IG, and AF ISR 
Agency all reviewed the allegations, and each time, the findings 
were unsubstantiated, to include alleged reprisal. 
Nevertheless, in accordance with 10 USC § 1034, we reviewed the 
evidence of record to reach our own independent determination of 
whether reprisal occurred. The applicant has not established 
that she ever made a protected communication and the EPR was 
rendered in retaliation to making a protected communication. 
Other than her own assertions, she has provided no evidence that 


would convince us the EPR was not an accurate description of her 
performance during the reporting period. Therefore, it is our 
determination the applicant has not been the victim of reprisal 
based on the evidence of record in this case. In view of the 
above and 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-2012-02987 in Executive Session on 26 Feb 13, under 
the provisions of AFI 36-2603: 

 

 Panel Chair 

 Member 

 Member 

 

Although was the Panel Chair, in view of his untimely death, has 
signed as Acting Panel Chair. The following documentary 
evidence was considered: 

 

 Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 2 Jul 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 15 Sep 12. 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 Acting Panel Chair