AIR FORCE BOARD  FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY 

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

JUL  I! 1 1998 
RECORDS 

IN 

THE MATTER OF: 

DOCKET NUMBER:  97-02709 
COUNSEL:  NONE 
HEARING DESIRED:  NO 

APPLICANT REOUESTS THAT: 
1.  The  Enlisted  Performance  Reports  (EPRs) rendered  for  the 
periods  2  April  1993  through  1 April  1994  and  2  April  1994 
through 15 November  1994 be  declared void  and removed from his 
records. 
2.  Letters of Reprimand  (LORs) dated October 1993  and January 
1994 be removed from his records. 

He  be  provided supplemental promotion consideration to  the 
3 .  
grade  of  technical  sergeant  for  each  promotion  cycle  from 
December 1994 through December 1997. 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 
The EPRs are  inaccurate, unjust and prejudicial to his military 
career.  He  states that they are  inaccurate because  he's  being 
rated as an otolaryngology surgical specialist  (ENT technician) , 
for  which  he  was  not  serving  in  that  capacity  during  the 
reporting periods.  He states that he should have been rated as a 
surgical  services  craftsman.  He  states  that  the  reports  are 
unjust  and prejudicial  to his  career due  to  the  absence of  an 
objective and  non-partial evaluation of  his  talents as .an ENT 
technician.  He states that he was never afforded the opportunity 
to be evaluated in an ENT environment as his career counterparts. 
His rater would have rated him an overall "4"  had it not been for 
the LORs he received. The first LOR was for his wife's  debt  (two 
late payments  on her privately owned vehicle  that was obtained 
via a credit union loan) ,  and the second LOR was  for failure to 
pay his Deferred Payment Plan (DPP) bill  (in the amount of $106) 
between 12 December 1993 and 17 January 1994.  He states that he 
should  not  have  been  responsible  for  his  wife's  debts. 
In 
reference  to  the  failure to pay  the  DPP bill,  he  states  that 
after providing Christmas for his four small children, he found 
himself a little short of money. 

97-02709 

In support of the appeal, applicant submits a personal statement, 
copies of  the EPRs, letters from individuals outside the rating 
chain,  a  copy  of  a  letter  to  his  congressman,  a  copy  of  a 
financial statement from a credit union, a copy of the two LORs, 
a  copy  of  the  Army  and  Air  Force  Exchange  Service  (AAFES) 
statement, a copy of a telephone contract, and other documents. 
Applicant's complete submission is attached at Exhibit A. 

,  STATEMENT OF FACTS: 

The applicant is currently serving in the Regular Air  Force in 
the grade of staff sergeant. 
On 28 October 1993, the applicant received an LOR for failure to 
pay  debts.  He provided  a  rebuttal stating he  should not  have 
received the LOR because the debt was incurred by his spouse not 
him. He also states that the failure to pay a part of this debt 
was a credit union error.  It appears this LOR was filed in the 
applicant's Personnel Information File (PIF) . 
On  18  January  1994,  the  applicant  received  a  second  LOR  for 
failure to pay a debt to the Army and Air Force Exchange Service 
(AAFES).  Based on documentation submitted by  the applicant it 
appears  this  LOR  was  placed  in  the  applicant's  Unfavorable 
Information File  (UIF) and updated in the Personnel Data System 
(PDS).  The applicant provided rebuttal comments for this LOR as 
well.  In his  rebuttal  he  stated  he  contacted AAFES  and  made 
arrangements to pay a portion of the amount due.  A receipt from 
AAFES reflects the applicant did pay a portion of the amount due, 
on the due date. 
The applicant received a referral EPR for the period 1 April 1993 
through 1 April 1994.  The EPR is considered referral due to an 
unacceptable marking/evaluation in the category of conduct on or 
The  EPR  f o r   the  period  2-April  1994  through 
off  duty. 
15 November 1994 was not a referral report, however, it did state 
that the applicant on occasion loses focus and uses poor judgment 
which overshadow periods of quality performance. 
EPR profile since 1992 reflects the following: 

PERIOD ENDING 

EVALUATION OF POTENTIAL 

1 Apr 92 
1 Apr 93 
"1 Apr 94 
"15 Nov 94 
15 Sep 95 
15 Sep 96 

2 

*Contested reports. 

97-02709 

AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 
The Chief, Commander's Programs Branch, AFPC/DPSFC, reviewed this 
application and states that the use of the LOR by commanders and 
supervisors  is  an  exercise  of  supervisory  authority  and 
responsibility.  The LOR is used to reprove, correct and instruct 
,  subordinates  who  depart  from  acceptable  norms  of  conduct  or 
'  behavior,  on  or  off  duty, and  helps  maintain  established Air 
Force standards of conduct or behavior.  The LOR is optional for 
file in the UIF for enlisted personnel.  They further state that 
UIFs may be used by commanders to form the basis for a variety of 
adverse actions as they relate to the member's  conduct' bearing, 
behavior, integrity and so forth  (on or off duty) ,  or less than 
acceptable  duty  performance. 
Commanders  have  the  option  to 
remove an enlisted member's  UIF early. 
Based only on the LORs 
received, they recommend denial of applicant's request. 

A complete copy of the evaluation is attached at Exhibit C. 
The  Chief, Appeals  and  SSB  Branch, AFPC/DPPPAB, also  reviewed 
this application and states that it appears the contested reports 
were accomplished in direct accordance with Air Force policy in 
effect  at  the  time  they  were  rendered.  In  reference  to  the 
applicant  stating  the  he  worked  outside  his  specialty  and 
therefore could not have been rated properly, and that his rater 
did not obtain input from others before finalizing the contested 
EPRs; they state, ... it is the rater's ultimate responsibility to 
determine  which  accomplishments  are  included  on  the  EPRs  and 
whether or not it is necessary to gather additional information 
from other sources in order to render an accurate assessment of 
the  individual. 
The  rater  obviously  considered  she  had 
sufficient knowledge of the applicant' s  performance and rendered 
a valid  assessment of his performance.  The applicant fails to 
realize  or  understand  that,  by  virtue  gf  human  nature,  an 
individual's  self-assessment of  performance  is  often  somewhat 
glorified  compared to an evaluator's  perspective  because it  is 
based on perceptions of  self.  His report is not inaccurate or 
unfair  simply because  he  believes  it  is.  In  regards  to  the 
applicant stating that the contested EPRs are inconsistent with 
previous performance; the EPR  was designed to provide  a rating 
for  a  specific  period  of  time  based  on  the  performance  noted 
during  that  period,  not  based  on previous  performance.  They 
point out that the EPR was rendered to the applicant as a result 
of  unacceptable  off-duty  behavior. 
Although  the  applicant 
contends the debts were not attributable to him, or a result of 
living beyond his means, they do not agree.  They state that the 
applicant  and  his  dependent  made  a  series  of  decisions  that 
ultimately  led  to  his  financial problems.  The  fact  is, the 
applicant  was  expected  to  maintain  standards  of  conduct  and 

3 

97-02709 

responsibility at  lease  as  stringent  as  the  rest  of  the  non- 
commissioned officer  (NCO) corps.  While  the  applicant  served 
overseas in an international environment, he allowed his personal 
priorities  to  influence  his  duty  performance,  which  was 
appropriately reflected  in his  EPR.  As  members  of  the  United 
States Air Force, we are sworn to and required to perform duties 
under all conditions.  The fact is, the applicant was expected to 
maintain  job performance  at  the  level  of  the  rest  of  the  NCO 
corps.  Rather  than  putting  the  mission  first, the  applicant 
chose to blame his lack of performance on the environment around 
,  him. 
His  supervisor  accurately  portrayed  the  applicant's 
'  unsatisfactory duty performance and inability to meet  standards 
on the contested EPRs.  To remove them from his record would be 
unfair  to  all  the NCOs  who  rose above  their  circumstances and 
satisfactorily  performed  their  duties. 
They  understand  the 
applicant's  desire  for  the  board  to  direct  voidance  of  the 
contested  EPR  because  of  the  promotion  advantage. 
However , 
removal of the contested report would make the applicant's record 
inaccurate.  The  contested  report  was  accomplished  in  direct 
accordance with Air  Force policy  in effect  at  the  time  it was 
rendered. 
Therefore,  they  recommend  denial  of  applicant's 
request. 
A complete copy of the evaluation is attached at Exhibit D. 
The Chief, Inquiries/AFBCMR Section, AFPC/DPPPWB, also reviewed 
this  application  and  states  that  should  the  Board  void  the 
contested report in its entirety, upgrade the overall rating, or 
make  any  other  significant change, providing  the  applicant  is 
otherwise  eligible,  the  applicant  will  be  entitled  to 
supplemental promotion consideration commencing with cycle 9536. 

A complete copy of their evaluation is attached at Exhibit E. 

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 
Copies of  the Air Force evaluations were  fgorwarded to applicant 
on 23 March 1998 for review and response.  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. 

Insufficient  relevant  evidence  has  been  presented  to 
3 .  
demonstrate the existence of  probable .error or injustice.  After 

4 

97-02709 

reviewing  the  evidence  of  record, we  are  not  persuaded  that  the 
applicant  has  been  the  victim  of  an  error  or  injustice.  His 
contentions  are  noted;  however,  in  our  opinion,  the  detailed 
comments provided by  the appropriate! Air  Force off ices adequately 
address those allegations.  Therefore, we  agree with the opinions 
and  recommendations of the Air  Force and adopt their rationale as 
the basis for the 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  compelling basis  to  recommend  granting  the 
relief sought in this application. 

I t 

THE BOARD  DETERMINES THAT: 
The  applicant  be  notified  that  the  evidence  presented  did  not 
demonstrate the existence of probable 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 this application in 
Executive  Session  on  16  June  1998, under  the  provisions  of  AFI 
36-2603 : 

Mr. David W. Mulgrew, Panel Chair 
Mr. Joseph G ,  Diamond, Member 
Mr. Frederick R. Beaman 111, Member 
Ms. Phyllis L. Spence, Examiner (without vote) 

The following documentary evidence was considered: 

Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 18 Aug 97, w/atchs. 
Exhibit B, Applicant's Master Personnel Records. 
Exhibit C, Letter, AFPC/DPSFC, dated 17 Feb 98. 
Exhibit D, Letter, AFPC/DPPWB, dated 23-Feb 98. 
Exhibit E. Letter, AFPC/DPPPAB, dated 27 Feb 98. 
Exhibit F, Letter, AFBCMR, dated 23 Mar 98. 

n 

DAVID W. MULGREW 
Panel Chair 

/ 

5