- *  

! 

1 

QEP 2 4  a 

AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

IN THE MATTER OF: 

DOCKET NUMBER: 9 7 - 0 2 9 7 9  
COUNSEL:  None 
HEARING DESIRED:  No 

APPLICANT REOUESTS THAT: 

The  Uniform  Code 'of Military  Justice  (UCMJ) Article  15  dated 
6  August  1 9 9 6 ,   the Letter of  Reprimand  (LOR) dated  14 November 
1 9 9 6 ,   and the referral Enlisted Performance Report  (EPR) closing 
1 November 1 9 9 6   be removed from his records. 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

Operations Support Squadron 
nt testimony of mitigating ci 

1.  Regarding the Article 15:  He was denied due process. Certain 
procedures were not followed; specifically, he was instructed by 
S )   First  Sergeant not 
the 
to 
tances. This testimony 
could have negated the Article 15 altogether. Evidence presented 
to his  first sergeant was not allowed into consideration during 
the investigative and appellate phases of  the proceedings.  [ T h e  
r a t e r   of  the  c o n t e s t e d   EPR  wrote  a  statement 
i n   a p p l i c a n t ' s  
b e h a l f   regarding  the  A r t i c l e   15  punishment,  and  i t  i s  included  i n  
this  appeal. 3 
2 .   Regarding  the  EPR:  Procedures  were  not  followed  and  he 
received  unfair/unjust  treatment. His  rebuttal  to  the  EPR  was 
turned in to the indorser who, just five days prior, was relieved 
of  duty  I t .   .  .  for,  in  the  HQ  USAFE  IG  [Inspector General] 
reports  [ s i c ]   words,  exerting  undue  influence  on  another 
individuals [ s i c ]  EPR." His testimony to the IG on this issue was 
known  by  the  indorser.  The  referral  EPR  also  contains  the 
incorrect amount of days of supervision. 
3 .   Regarding  the  LOR:  This  action  was  unfairly/unjustly 
conducted  in  reprisal  and  as  a  way  to  cover  up  his  flight 
commander's removal  because  of  an  IG  investigation's negative 
findings, not  to protect  her  from his  alleged death threat. He 
was  "blackmailed" into signing the LOR by  threats to delay his 
permanent change of station (PCS) move. 

According  to  a  14  January  1998  memorandum  submitted  by  the 
applicant's area defense counsel  (ADC)  to reviewing authorities 
(See Exhibit A), IG investigation confirmed that the Article  15 
appellate  authority  never  received  or  reviewed  matters  the 
applicant  had  submitted.  The  documefitation  was  in  essence  a 
summary  of  applicant's  service  record.  The  ADC  contended  the 

offering  commander  did  not  properly  consider  the  applicant's 
service  record  in  deciding  whether  nonjudicial  punishment  was 
appropriate and, if  so, what  level of punishment was warranted. 
Therefore, the  ADC  argued  the  applicant  appears  to  have  been 
denied due process.  This memorandum was included in an addendum 
to the original AFBCMR  appeal and is addressed by  the Air Force 
in Exhibit F. 

[ A p p l i c a n t   mentions  t h a t   a  3000-page  USAFE  I G   r e p o r t   has  been 
sent  t o   the  " m i l i t a r y   board  of  corrections." 
However,  no  such 
document  w a s   included  i n   this  appeal,  or  received  by  t h i s   o f f i c e  
i n  connection w i t h   this  appeal.] 
Applicant's complete submission is attached at Exhibit A. 

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 

Applicant is currently serving in the grade of technical sergeant 
(Date of Rank  (DOR): 1 Dec 92; Effective Date: 5 Dec 96). 
On  1  August  1996,  applicant  was  notified  of  his  squadron 
commander's intent to impose nonjudicial punishment upon him for 
failure to obey a  lawful regulation by wrongfully using his US 
Government American Express card for personal purposes in the sum 
of about $2,182.33 on divers occasions between, on or about 8 and 
24 June 1996. After consulting with counsel, applicant waived his 
right  to  a  trial  by  court-martial,  requested  a  personal 
appearance  and  submitted  a  written  presentation.  On  6  August 
1996,  he was found guilty by  his squadron commander who  imposed 
the following punishment:  Reduction to staff sergeant with a DOR 
of  6 August  1996,  forfeiture of  $800.00  pay  (forfeiture of  pay 
was  suspended  until  5 February 1997)  and  reprimand;. Applicant 
submitted written documentation in appeal on 9 August 1996. 
On  1  November  1996,  the  contested  EPR  was  referred  to  the 
applicant.  Applicant  provided  a rebuttal on  13  November  1996. 
The  EPR  has  an  overall  rating  of  1131t with  five  of  the  seven 
performance factors in Section 111 marked down one and two blocks 
from the right. Factor number four was downgraded all the way to 
the left by the indorser, which caused the referral. 

On 14 November 1996, the applicant received an LOR for violating 
UCMJ  Articles  89  and  134  (disrespect  toward  a  superior 
commissioned officer and communicating a threat, respectively) by 
drawing a skull and cross-bones on a blackboard with the flight 
commander's first name below  it. Applicant  rebutted the LOR  on 
20 November  1996,  asserting  he  did  not  author  the  drawing  in 
quest ion. 

2 

9 7 - 0 2 9 7 9 

I 

On 5 December 1996, a new group commander restored the applicant 
to  technical  sergeant  by  suspending  the  reduction  to  staff 
sergeant. The suspension mandated  that the Article  15 be placed 
in an Unfavorable Information File (UIF). 

AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

The  Associate  Chief,  Military  Justice  Division,  AFLSA/JAJM, 
reviewed the appeal and indicates that if the First Sergeant gave 
the applicant erroneous advice about the merits of his defense, 
the applicant should have known better than to heed his advice. 
The  applicant  had  access  to  a  defense  attorney  throughout  the 
Article 15 proceeding. If he made a poor decision based upon poor 
advice  from  someone  other  than  his  defense  counsel, he  alone 
bears  the  consequences  of  that  act.  Interestingly,  the 
applicant's  written  appeal  to  the  punishment  also  does  not 
reference the defense he  claims to have  unwittingly  suppressed 
during his personal presentation. Thus, even though he had  time 
between the commander's imposition of punishment  and his appeal 
to confer with his attorney about this issue, he did not do so. 
Further,  if  the  legal  office  did  not  retain  the  applicant's 
submission in their files for three years, the mistake does not 
constitute material error. Materials submitted in defense to an 
Article  15 action are not part  of  a member's official records. 
Finally, although a  commander's failure to  consider a member's 
submissions in defense would  constitute an  injustice, there  is 
absolutely no evidence that such a failure occurred in this case 
(apart  from  the  applicant's  conjecture).  As  for  his  claims 
regarding the LOR, the government's official actions are presumed 
to  be  correct  absent  the  applicant's showing  they  were  wrong. 
Apart  from his creative conjecture, he has submitted nothing to 
show that the commander's action in imposing the LOR was wrong. A 
bare  assertion  of  a  "cover  up"  does  not  support  relief.  His 
contention that he was coerced into accepting the LOR reflects a 
basic  misunderstanding  of  this  action.  The  applicant  had  no 
election  regarding  the  LOR---there  was  no  decision  to  be 
"coerced. 'I  Denial is recommended. 
A complete copy of the evaluation is attached at Exhibit C. 

The Chief, Inquiries/BCMR Section, HQ AFPC/DPPPWB, indicates that 
when  applicant's  unit  commander  restored  him  to  technical 
sergeant  by  suspending  the  reduction  to  staff  sergeant,  the 
applicant  had  a  new  effective  date  for  technical  sergeant  of 
5 December 1996  with  his original DOR  of  1 December 1992. When 
the commander suspended the reduction in grade it  also rendered 
the applicant ineligible for promotion for cycle 9737. However, 
if  the Board voids  the Article  15 or  removes the  reduction or 
suspended  reduction,  the  effective  date  would  revert  to  the 
original date of 1 December 1992.  The. fact that the EPR closing 
1 November 1996 was a referral report also rendered the applicant 
ineligible for promotion for cycle 9737.  Providing the applicant 

3 

97-02979 

I 

is otherwise eligible  (receives an EPR  that  is not  referral or 
rated a a 2 1 1  or less), the first time the contested report will be 
considered in the promotion process  (provided it  is not voided) 
is cycle 9837 to master sergeant. 
A  complete copy  of  the  evaluation  is, with  attachments, is at 
Exhibit D. 

The Chief, Commander's Programs Branch, HQ AFPC/DPSFC, evaluated 
the case and indicates that the Article 1 5   is mandatory for file 
in an unfavorable information file  (UIF) for enlisted personnel 
when the punishment  is in excess of one month, as was the case 
with the applicant. The LOR is optional for file in the UIF for 
enlisted  personnel.  Commanders  have  the  option  to  remove  an 
enlisted  member's UIF  early.  The  applicant's current  commander 
gave the applicant his rank back; however, he  did not  elect to 
remove  the  entire UIF  (Article 15  and  LOR), which  he  has  the 
authority to do. The author indicates AFPC/DPSFC  is not  in the 
business  of  assessing  a  commander's decision-making  authority 
when  assigning  nonjudicial  punishment  and/or  administrative 
actions  to  subordinates.  The  applicant's  current  commander 
apparently believed the applicant was treated harshly because he 
did  suspend  the  reduction; however, he  left  the  UIF  in place 
although he had the authority to remove it early and still does. 
It  appears to  the Chief  that  the applicant's current  commander 
rectified any unjust treatment the applicant experienced from his 
past commander. Denial is appropriate. 

A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit E. 
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS FROM AFLSA/JAJM: 

The  Associate  Chief,  Military  Justice  Division,  provided 
additional comments pertaining to applicant's having submitted a 
14  January  1998  letter  from  his  ADC.  The  ADC  asserts  that 
applicant's commander  did  not  consider  all  matters  submitted 
pertaining  to applicant's military  service record before  taking 
action  on  the  offer  for  nonjudicial  punishment.  The  Chief 
indicates the applicant  still has not  included any evidence  to 
support his  contention that  his  commander did  not  consider all 
matters  submitted  other  than  his  and  his  defense  counsel's 
allegations. Even  if  his  contention were  true, the  matters  he 
refers  to  would  not  change  the  underlying  facts  of  his 
misconduct. The inadvertent failure of his commander to consider 
portions of applicant's submission in response to his Article 15 
would be an error by the commander. However, where those matters 
had  no bearing  on  the  underlying  facts  supporting  the  charges 
against the applicant, such as in this case, that error would not 
result  in  material  prejudice  to  the  rights  of  the  applicant. 
Denial is still recommended. 

A complete copy of the additional comments, with attachments, is 
at Exhibit F. 

4 

97-02979 

The  Chief,  BCMR  &  SSB  Section, HQ  AFPC/DPPPA,  evaluated  this 
appeal regarding the EPR and points out that neither a 3000-page 
IG report referred to in applicant's brief nor a summary report 
of  inquiry are included with this appeal. Regardless, this does 
not negate the behavior noted on the EPR regarding the misuse of 
the credit card.  The author notes there is no comment on the EPR 
regarding  the  LOR  or  the  reason  he  received  the  LOR.  The 
applicant himself  does not dispute the fact that he  abused the 
credit  card.  For  this  reason,  the  EPR  should  remain  a  valid 
document. Applicant  also contends the EPR  shows a report period 
of  3 6 6   days of  supervision when he was on temporary duty  (TDY) 
for  166  days  during  that  period.  The  applicant  has  not 
substantiated this claim with supporting documentation to verify 
the  number  of  days  of  supervision  is  incorrect.  AFI  36-2403 
states that 30 or more consecutive [emphasis advisory's] calendar 
days during which the ratee did not perform normal duties under 
the rater's supervision will be deducted from the number of days 
of supervision. If the applicant is able to substantiate his TDYs 
were 30 or more consecutive days in length, then AFPC/DPPPA would 
not object to adjusting the number of days of supervision on the 
contested EPR.  Also noted is that the indorser on the contested 
EPR  was  either  the rater or  indorser on the  applicant's three 
previous EPRs in which he received  "55" and  firewalled reports. 
This proves that an evaluation report is written to document the 
performance  for  a  specific  period  of  time  based  on  the 
performance  noted  during  that  period,  not  based  on  previous 
performance/conduct. The author strongly urges that the request 
to void the contested EPR be denied. 

A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit G. 

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

Complete copies of  the Air  Force evaluations were  forwarded to 
the applicant on 18 March  1998  for review and comment within 30 
days.  As  of  this date, no response has been  received by  this 
off ice. 

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT: 

1.  The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by existing 
law or regulations. 

2.  The application was timely filed. 
3.  Sufficient  relevant  evidence  has  been  presented  to 
demonstrate  the  existence  of  probable  error  or  injustice  to 
warrant granting partial relief. In reaching this conclusion, we 
considered the following: 

5 

97-02979 

a.  The applicant contends, in part, that he was denied due 
process and the Article 15 may have been negated altogether had 
the commander considered all matters  submitted. We do not agree 
with this speculation. Even if the commander did fail to consider 
portions of the applicant's submission (and we are not completely 
convinced that  this occurred), those matters  had  no bearing  on 
the underlying fact supporting the charge against the applicant, 
i.e., that he misused a government credit card. Consequently, we 
do not believe  the error, if  indeed there was one, resulted in 
material prejudice to the rights of this applicant. We note the 
new  commander  suspended  applicant's  initial  demotion  from 
technical sergeant to staff sergeant. While this suspended "bust" 
restored  his  original  grade  and  date  of  rank  for  technical 
sergeant, it made him ineligible for promotion consideration for 
master sergeant during cycle 9 7 3 7 .   If the commander had felt the 
Article 15 was unwarranted, he could have revoked it entirely. He 
could also have removed the UIF early instead of  leaving it  in 
place. Considering the fact that the $800.00 fine had also  been 
suspended, the Article  15 punishment applicant received appears 
reasonable  and  appropriate.  Applicant's  other  contentions 
regarding the Article  15  issue have  been  addressed  in the Air 
Force advisories, and we concur with their determination that no 
corrective action is required in this respect. 

b.  The  behavior  noted  on  the  EPR  closing  1 November  1 9 9 6  
pertains  to  the  misuse  of  the  government  credit  card, a  fact 
which the applicant himself does not dispute and which was the 
basis  for the Article 15 discussed above. Since we have already 
concluded that the contested Article 15 should stand, the EPR  in 
question  should  also  remain  a  matter  of  record  as  a  valid 
document.  Applicant  also  contends  that  this  report  has  an 
incorrect  number  of  days  of  supervision; however,  he  has  not 
provided  supporting  documentation  to  verify  this  claim. 
Therefore, removing the EPR  on this basis is also without merit. 
c.  Although we remain unconvinced by applicant's allegations 
that the 14 November 1 9 9 6   LOR  was rendered in reprisal or as a 
"cover up" action, we cannot determine with certainty whether he 
did, in fact, author the chalkboard drawing. A  witness claims to 
have  seen the  applicant  in  the room by  the  chalkboard but, as 
best  as we can determine, the witness did not  actually see who 
drew the skull and crossbones. The basis for the LOR  is, in our 
view, questionable. Since we  believe  any doubt  in  this respect 
should be  resolved  in  favor of  the  applicant, voiding  the  LOR 
seems warranted. 

In summary, for the reasons discussed above we conclude that the 
Article  15 and the contested EPR  should not be  removed from the 
applicant's records, but the LOR  dated 14 November 1 9 9 6   should be 
voided. Therefore, we  recommend his records be  corrected to the 
extent indicated below. 

6 

97-02979 

THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: 

The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force 
relating to APPLICANT, be  corrected to show that  the Letter of 
Reprimand, dated  14 November  1996  be, and  hereby  is, declared 
void and removed from his records. 

The following members of the Board considered this application in 
Executive Session on 25 August 1998, under the provisions of AFI 
36-2603: 

Mrs. Barbara A. Westgate, Panel Chair 
Ms. Olga M. Crerar, Member 
Ms. Patricia D. Vestal, Member 

All  members voted  to correct the records, as recommended.  The 
following documentary evidence was considered: 

Exhibit A. 
Exhibit B. 
Exhibit C. 
Exhibit D. 
Exhibit E. 
Exhibit F. 
Exhibit G. 
Exhibit H. 

DD Form 149, dated 29 Sep 97, w/atchs. 
Applicant's Master Personnel Records. 
Letter, AFLSA/JAJM, dated 7 Nov 97. 
Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPPWB, dated 21 Nov 97, w/atchs. 
Letter, HQ AFPC/DPSFC, dated 8 Jan 98. 
Letter, AFLSA/JAJM, dated 27 Jan 98. 
Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPPA, dated 18 Feb 98. 
Letter, AFBCMR, dated 18 Mar 98. 

Panel Chair 

7 

97-02979 

< 

I

.

 

,  DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR  FORCE 

A I R   FORCE L E G A L  SERVICES AGENCY (AFLSA) 

MEMORANDUM FOR AFBCMiX 

I ‘  

38 

/ 

7  NOV  1991 

FROM: AFLSNJAJM (Major Love) 
112 Luke Avenue, Room 343 
Bolling Air Force Base, DC 20332-8000 

Applicant’s request:  In an application dated  29 September 1997, the applicant 

requests that an UCMJ Article 15 action received in August 1996 and a Letter of 
Reprimand (LOR) received on 14 November 1996 be removed from his records.  The 
application was submitted within the three-year window provided by  10 U.S.C. 1552(b). 

Facts of military justice action:  On 6 August 1996, the applicant received 

nonjudicial punishment for violating UCMJ Article 92 (Violation of a Lawful General 
Regulation) by misusing his Government American Express Card.  According to the AF 
Form 3070, instead of using the card for official expenses, the applicant used the card for 
personal purposes in the sum of $2 182.33. The punishment imposed was a reduction 
fiom the grade of technical sergeant to staff  sergeant, a suspended forfeiture of $SOO.OO, 
and a reprimand.  On 14 November 1996, the applicant received a LOR for violating 
UCMJ Article 89 (Disrespect Toward a Superior Commissioned Officer) and Article 134 
(Communicating a Threat).  The misconduct involved drawing a skull and cross-bones on 
a blackboard with the flight commander’s first name below it.  However, on 5 December 
1.996, the applicant’s unit commander restored the applicant to technical sergeant by 
suspending the reduction to staff sergeant. 

op 
Applicant’s Contentions:  The applicant asserts that his first sergeant dissuaded 

him from raising certain defenses during his personal presentation prior to the 
commander’s decision on the Article 15 action.  The applicant also contends that because 
the servicing legal office cannot produce the materials he submitted in defense of the 
Article 15, the Board should assume the commander never considered his materials at all. 

Regarding the LOR, the applicant contends that he did not commit the underlying 

misconduct and that he was coerced into accepting the LOR by threats to delay his 
permanent change of station (PCS) move.  The applicant believes the LOR was a 
fraudulent act by his commander to “cover up” the reason for his flight commander’s 
removal fiom her position. 

Discussion:  The applicant’s assertions do not support relief in this case.  If the 

first sergeant gave the applicant erroneous advice about the merits of his defense, the 

applicant should have known better than to heed his advice.  The applicant had access to 
a defense attorney throughout the Article 15 proceeding.  If the applicant made a poor 
decision based upon poor advice from someone other than his defense counsel, he alone 
bears the consequences of that act.  It is interesting to note that the applicant’s written 
appeal to the punishment also does not reference the defense he claims to have 
Unwittingly suppressed during his personal presentation.  Thus, even though the applicant 
had time between the commander’s imposition of punishment (6 Aug  1996) and his 
appeal (9 Aug 1996) to confer with his attorney about this issue, he did not do so 

The applicant also asserts that the legal ofice’s failure to retain his materials 

submitted in defense warrant removing the Article 15 action from his records.  Under AFI 
36-2603, the applicant has the burden of proving, by sufficient evidence, that a material 
error or injustice occurred.  If the legal office did not retain the applicant’s submissions in 
their files for 3 years, the mistake does not constitute material mor. Note that under AFI 
51-202, materials submitted in defense to an Article 15 action are not part of a member’s 
official records.  Finally, although a commander’s failure to consider a member’s 
submissions in defense would constitute an injustice, there is absolutely no evidence that 
such a failure occurred in this case (apart from the applicant’s conjecture). 

The applicant believes that his LOR was imposed solely to provide an excuse for 

removing the commander in question from her position.  He also claims that he was 
coerced into accepting the LOR by a threat to delay his PCS.  Again, the applicant’s bare 
assertions do not support such a finding.  The government’s official actions are presumed 
to be correct absent the applicant’s showing that they were wrong.  Apart from the 
applicant’s creative conjecture, he has submitted nothing to show that the commander’s 
action in imposing the LOR was wrong.  A bare assertion of a “cover up” does not 
support relief.  Further, the applicant’s contention that he was coerced into accepting the 
LOR reflects a basic misunderstanding of this action.  The applicant had no election 
regarding the LOR - there was no decision to be “coerced.” 

Recommendation:  After a review of the available records, I conclude that 

administrative relief by this office is not appropriate.  There are no legal errors requiring 
corrective action.  I therefore recommend that the Board deny the requested relief. 

Associate Chief, Military Justice Division 
Air Force Legal Services Agency 

9702979 

- ,  

e 

DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE 

HEADQUARTERS AIR FORCE PERSONNEL CENTER 

RANDOLPH AIR FORCE BASE TEXAS 

2  I  NOY  1397 

MEMORANDUM FOR AFPCYDPSFC 

AFPC/DPPPAB 
AFBCMR 
IN TURN 

FROM:  AJ?PC/DPPPWB 

550 C Street West,  Ste 09 
Randolph AFB TX 78 150-47 1 1 

SUBJECT:  A 

lication for Correction of Military Records (

 PP 

1

(

Requested Action.  The applicant is requesting several actions to include removal of an Article 
15 received 6 Aug 96 and voiding of his Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) closing 1 Nov 96. 

Reason for Request.  Applicant claims his first sergeant dissuaded him from mising certain 
defenses during his personal presentation prior to the commander’s decision on the Article 15 
action.  In addition, he claims that his servicing legal office cannot produce the materials he 
submitted in defense of the Article 15 action.  He also believes his Referral Enlisted Performance 
Report is a result of the Article 15 action. 

Facts. - See AFLSNJAJM Ltr, 7 Nov  97 and AT?PC/DPPPAl3 Ltr. 

9702979 

.. 

. 

first  day of the  month 1 

.' 

(Table continued on mxt page) 

9702979 
. . . . . . . . . . . 

1 

(JE 

1. 

NO 
1.  . 
2. 
inc: 
PrC 
unc 
ine' 
PC 
3. 
fou 
fro1 
4. 

5. 
he: 
6. 
diSl 
diSl 
COC 

L 

Table 1.1.  Continued 
T  is pending administrative demotion action under 
U  is identified as a substantiated substance abuser for other than alcohol and  . 

(See note 2) 
doesn't successfully complete rehabilitation under the USAF SART Program. 
Pa code T.  (See note 2) 

36-2503.  PES  code H.  X  X  X 
X  X  X 

V  is disqudified from a previously awarded AFS for cause (RX9A200 or 9A100).  X  X 
PES code Q.  (See note 6) 
is undergoing a suspended reduction imposed by  UCMJ  Article 15, PES code  X  X 
A.  (Seenote2) 

W 
X 
X  fails SART  3 or 4 (including self-ID'or enteredinto SART 5).  PES code 0.  X  X  X 

I 

X 

(See note 2) 

5 

X 
x 

X 

X 

X 

c 

f 
' 

I 

i i 

NOTES: 
1. For ineligibility of airmen entering commissioning programs, see paragraph 3.1. 
2.  TSgt, MSgt,  and  SMSgt with a retirement  (based  on HYT)  date effective the  fmt day  of  the  month  the  promotion 
 an's HYT extended  for medical  hold  remain  imtigible €or 
incrementing star*, remain  eligible for promotion. 
promotion consideration.  Ainnen will not  receive supplemental promotion consideration for any cycle they  are ineligible 
under this rule.  You  can promote airmen in grades AB  through A1C exceeding TIG/TIS requirements the day after the 
ineligibility condition no longer exists.  PES code will change to 'XI' effective the date AFMPC approves withdrawal of  a 
PCS declination statement. 
3.  Promote airmen who remain on active duty in a limited assignment status &AS), or who remain on active duty and later 
found fit after formal proceedings. Do this on the promotion effective date the PSN is announced.  If returned to active duty 
from TDRL, the DOR is the original date of promotion.  The effective &te  is date returned to active duty. 
4.  Nonrecommend airmen in the grade of AB through A1 C in monthly hcrements from thc original effective date outlined in 
AFMAN 36-2125 (formerly AFM 30-130, volume 1).  BTZ selectees removed from the selection list remain ineligible until 
they meet the fully qualified promotion requirements. 
1  5.  You may waive the promotion ineligibility or any portion of  the ineligible period.  You  may not waive the  promotion 
ineligibility for airmen convicted and sentenced to confinement.  Tbe waiver authority rests with the wing commander. 
6.  Individuals  placed  in  lU9A200  (unclassified airman pending  discharge)  and  RI9A100  (airman awaiting  retraining, 
disqualified for reasons within control) remain ineligible for promotion.  Place them in PES code "Q", effective the date of 
disqualification.  Do this until awarding the airman a PAFSC at a skill level commensurate with current grade.  NOTE: PES 
code "Q" does not apply to airmen serving in grades AB and Amn 

e 13. Withholding Promotion {See paragraph 3.5). 

Withhold an airman's promotion when his or her name is removed from a select or eligibility Ust and 
the airman is 
awaiting a decision on aa application as a conscientious objector (AFI 36-3204 [formerly AFR 35-24]).  PES 
code S. 
$laced  into the SART Program for alcohol abuse.  PES code E.  (See notes 1 & 2) 
in the weight management program (WMP), Phase I (codes 1,2,5 or 6). PES code I.  (See notes 1 & 3) 
under court-martial or civil charges.  PES code D.  (See note 4) 
pending data veeication and the record is not available. GSR code 2D, 2M or 2P. 
missing somce document, and the MPF cannot verify one or more promotion factors.  GSR code 2R. 
under other masons the commander requests with prior approval from the individual's wing commander. (Do 
not use reasons of substandard behavior or performance, or problems with OR, e&,) GSR Code 2N. 
identified as having 18 or more years TAFMS on the promotion effective date and does not have 2 years 
retainability the day before the promotion effective date. GSR code 2K. 
serving in the grade of SrA and does not complete the NCO Preparatory Course or the Airman Leadership 
School; TSgt  and does not  complete the resident  command NCO  Academy;  and  SMSgt and  does not 
complete the resident Senior NCO Academy (a equivalent)  GSR Code 2T. (See Note 5)  . 

(Notes to table continued on next page) 

9702979 

.

.

 

0916032  JVN  95  RR  RR  flLwu 

DPMAt 

" 

HQ AFMPC RANDOLRW AFB  TX//DPUA// 
A I O   8 lO6//CC/DpM/DP~/DPMP/CcC// 
A I O   10607//M9M// 
ALPBRSCOM//DP/KP/IG/CCC// 
AIG  9336 

INFO  HQ USAF  HASWINOTON DC//DPXEP// 
XMT  HQ AFMPC RANDOLPH  APB  Tx 

PLBZSSB  =SUR&  WIDEST POSSIBLB DISSEMINATION 

S O N :  

IMPfipzEepTATION OF CHANGES TO THg ENLISTED BVAtttATION  SYSTEM 

;Bs) 

CSAP MSG 0816262 UAY  95  AND  HQ USAF/DP W G   2317002  MAY  95 

RBP: 
I. THIS MESSAGE IMPLEMENTS CHANGES TO THB  mrsm EVALUATION s y s m .  

OF "KE  CHANGES BEING IMPLEMENTED WILL TAKE  BPPEm  IWEDIATBLY, 

OTHeRS  WIU  REQUIRE ADDITIONAL TIME TO PHASE  IN BECAUSE  OF PROCEDURAL 
=DANCE,  REVISION OF BBS FORMS,  AND  ADDITIONAL STAPPINO. 
3.  FREDBACK  -  GPFBCTIVB IM4EDIATBLY 
A)  mTERS  POR  TSGT AND  BELOW  ARE  REQUIRED TO OOCUMENT  THE 
INITIAL/MIDTERM PBRFORMANCE  FEEDBACK  SESSION DATB  IN SBCTION V 

LEB 

Dp)(AJEP, 

7-2571 

8  DPMA, 7-6314 

UNCLASSIPIED 

091602ZJON95 

- 

9702979 

- 

- -  

- 

&TC+  2 

'  (AND  FUTURE  WSC  '2.  ENTRIBS) THEY  ARB  INELIGIBLE FOR  PROMOTION IF 
T t f E y  AR8  IN WSC  '2.  ON OR ApTgR  1 Affi  9 5 .   POR XNDIVIDtlALs  IN WSC  . l a ,  
.Sa  AEiD  '6',  CONTINUE USING PES COOP  'I.  SINCB  CWRRWT  PROMOTXON 
gfrIOIBILITY  POR THESE  CODBS REMAIN UNCHANGED  ( M I  36-2502,  TBL 1 . 2 ) .  
THIS  QUNOE  W I R E S   IMPLEMENTATION OF A  NBW  PES =DE,  WHICH WILL  BB 
IN "HE  NOV  95  SYSTEM  RELEASE.  UNTIL THEN  XPPS MUST  IDENTIN 
AVAI-LE 
, -T  ZNDMDUALS  IN WSC  .;1.  ON OR APTER  1 APO  95  AND  CHMGB  PES FROM CODE 
PLgAsB  CONTINUE USING PES CODE .N8  ON ANY FvruRB WSC 

ARB  NOT  ERRONEOUS PR-ION 

USING  PES  CODE  .N9  IS A  TRUFORARY  MgAsvRg AND  REQUIRES W S E  
SELECTIONS. 

.Xm  TO CODE  .N'. 
.2.S. 
H O N I ~ R I N O  To EN- 
4-k2) RgpgRRu  OR  '2.  BPRS ON  TOP:  INDIVIDUALS WITII  A  RBPERRAL 
- 
(ACCORDING TO MI  36-2403,  ATCX  1) OR  '2'  BPR ON TOP  CLOSING OUT 

COS  mUM,  D m ,  3-6314 

S C :   15970 

U N C ~ S I P I E D  

09160223uN95, 

9702979 

BECAUSE THERE'S  INSUFFICIENT TIm  FOR THEW  TO RBCBIYB ANOTHER  gPR 

-  PRIOR TO THE 1 AWQ  95  IMPLEMENTATION  DATE. FOR r m r v z w  WITH 

APPROPRIATE, 

W I C f g K C  SmmVISION  (60  DAYS),  IP CONSID- 
ConcAmrOgR  CAN D I U -   AN  BPR To C/O  NLT 31 jcTt 95  OR BARLIER,  TO 
RBGUIQ PROMOTfOi?  ELIOIBILITY PRIOR TO 1 AfxI  95  XMP-ATIObf. 
PpFBCTIVS  1 AUO  95  fNDIVIDWALS WITH A  RlgPBRRAL  OR '2'  EPR ON TOP  W X t t  
BE XNELIOIBLE FOR PROMOTION. AFTER  31 JVL 9 5 ,   SRA TEROUGH SMSOT  WILL 
REGAIN  TKEIR ELfOIBXLfTY ONLY  AFpgR RgCEfVINO A  REPORT  WITH A  RAT= 
OR WIGHgR THAT  IS NOT A  REFERRAL AND  WSES  OUT  ON  OR BEPORB 
OF 
TEfB #ExT  POCD,  IF OTHERWISE ELIGIBLE. AB "HRU A l C   WgBTINO T I O / T f S  
REQUIREMENTS AS OF 1 AUG  95  OR  IATER  C'ANNOT  BE PRoMoTgo 
OR-ION 
WIBR THAN  THE CLXlSB  OtPT  DATe OF AN BPR WITH  A  RATING OF m 3 a  OR 
LfIQMgft THAT  IS NOT A  m-8 

IF OTHERWISE BLIOIBLB AND  APPROVED BY 
e --- OaPoLANDgR. MPF'S  MUST  IDENTIFY INDIVIDUALS I X T H  A  RBFERRAL  (AAC  19 MAY 
OB HELPFUL)  OR .am  EPR  ON  TOP  AS OF 1 AUG  95  AND  USE  PES CODE 'H9  Tb 
MONITOR  THEIR PROMOTION STATUS UNTIL A  NEW PES C'ODE  IS AVAILABLg UITW 

. -  TLIB "v 95  SYSTPI  RELEASE.  ENSURE  SWRY  EFFORT  IS HADE TO NOTIFY 
- 

INDIVTDUALS  W I T H   A  RE- 
IATKR  OF THEIR PROMOTIOLJ  STATUS. SINCE TRIS CXANGE  IIPPECTS  SEVERAL 

"2'  BPR  ON  TOP  AS OF 1 AU%  95  OR 

-/OR 

a 4 s m L B E  

-  Dplajgp, 

7-2571 

m h  m, D m ,  7-6314 
RCt  15970 
 

.

1 
1
1 
# 

tmcIMSIFfED 

0 9 1 6 0 2 ~ 9 5  

9702979 

DEPARTMENT O F  T H E  A I R   FORCE 

HEADQUARTERS  AIR  FORCE  PERSONNEL C E N T E R  

RANDOLPH AIR  FORCE  BASE  TEXAS 

- 

550 C Street West Ste 37 
Randolph AFB TX 78150-4737 

MEMORANDUM FOR S A F ~ R  
FROM: HQ AFPCDPSFC 

: c 

SUBJECT Application for Correction of Military Record - 

Requested Action(s):  Applicant requests removal of an Article 15, UCMJ action dated 6 

Aun 96, and removal of an Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) covering the period 2 Nov 95 
through 1 Nov 96.  The applicant also discusses a Letter of Reprimand dated 14 Nov 96 but only 
requests that the issuing of it be investigated. This advisory discusses the Article 15 and Letter 
of Reprimand issues only.  The EPR data will be discussed under separate cover. 

Basis for Request:  Applicant contends the Article 15 should be deleted fiom his records 
because he was advised to withhold the testimony he wanted to give in his defense.  Applicant 
contends if he were allowed to present his testimony, the commander may have elected not to 
impose the Article 15.  Applicant feels his LOR was given unfairly and unjustly as reprisal and 
as a way to cover up an officer's removal from a position. 

Facts:  The applicant received an Article 15 on 6 Aug 96, for wrongful use of a 

government American Express Card.  The applicant was demoted to staff sergeant and fined (a 
forfeiture of pay).  The portion of the Article 15 calliig for the forfeiture was suspended until 
Feb 97.  Based on the suspension, the Article 15 became mandatory for file  in an Unfavorable 
Information File Om;).  The applicant had the opportunity to provide rebuttal.  After moving to a 
new base, the applicant's new commander gave the applicant his rank back (made him a 
technical sergeant again), by suspending the demotion portion of his Article 15.  Prior to 
relocating to his new base the applicant received a LOR dated 14 Nov 96 for disrespect toward a 
superior commissioned officer and communicating a threat.  The applicant provided rebuttal. 
The commander indicated in the LOR, he intended to file the LOR in the applicant's UIF. 

Discussion: .Nonjudicial punishment (Article 15), provides commanders with an essential 
and prompt means of maintaining good order and discipline and also promotes positive behavior 
changes in service members without the stigma of a court-martial conviction.  It is recommended 
commanders consider nonpunitive disciplinary measures first, such as counseling, administrative 
reprimands, etc., before resorting to nonjudicial punishment, however such measures are not 
necessary prior to imposing nonjudicial punishment. The Article 15 is mandatory for file in an 

9702979 

. 

2 
UIF for enlisted personnel when the punishment is in excess of one month, as was the case with 
the applicant. 

The use of the Letter of Reprimand by commanders and supervisors is an exercise of 

supervisory authority and responsibility.  The LOR is used to reprove, correct and instruct 
subordinates who depart &om 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. 

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.  The applicant’s current commander gave the applicant his rank back, 
however he did not elect to remove the entire UIF (Article 15 and LOR), which he does have the 
authority to do (AFI 36-2907, The Unfavorable Information File Program).  The applicant never 
stated the Article 15 wasn’t warranted. He did imply that for a first time offense he felt the 
punishment was harsh, given his career highlights, and he believes the commander may not have 
punished him via the Article 15 or at the very least, provided a lesser punishment if the 
commander would have known of the applicant’s circumstances, which he (the applicant) was 
advised not to discuss. 

The applicant feels his LOR was unjust and based on reprisal, but has failed to provide 

sufficient documentation to prove his claim. 

Recommendation:  We are not in the business of assessing a commander’s decision 
making authority when assigning nonjudicial punishment and/or administrative actions to 
subordinates.  We believe denial is appropriate. The applicant had an opportunity to provide 
rebuttal to the Article 15 and LOR.  Commanders have no obligation to remove the ArticIe 15, 
LORs, or entire UIF early unless they believe the information presented in the rebuttals warrants 
it.  The applicant’s current commander apparently believed the applicant was treated harshly, 
because he did suspend the applicant’s grade reduction.  However, he left the UIF in place 
although he had the authority to remove it early and still does.  It appears to this oflice that the 
applicant’s current commander rectified any unjust treatment the applicant experienced fiom his 
past commander. 

WILLIAM F. NADOLSKI, Maj, USAF 
Chief, Commander’s Programs Branch 

DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR  FORCE 
AIR  FORCE LEGAL SERVICES AGENCY  (AFLSA) 

MEMORANDUM FOR AFBCMR 

FROM: AFLSNJAJM (Major Love) 
112 Luke Avenue, Room 343 
Bolling Air Force Base, DC 20332-8000 

27 Jan 98 

Applicant’s request:  In an application dated  29 September 1997, the applicant 

requests that an Article 15, UCMJ, action received in August 1996 and a Letter of 
Reprimand FOR) received on 14 November 1996 be removed from his records.  The 
application was submitted within the three-year window provided by 10 U.S.C. 1552(b). 
The applicant submitted additional matters on 15 Jan 98 claiming his commander did not 
consider matters the applicant submitted pertaining to his military service record before 
the commander took action on the offer for nonjudicial punishment. 

The applicant still has not included any evidence to support his’contention that his 

commander did not consider all matters submitted by the applicant, other than the 
allegations of the applicant and his defense counsel.  Even if his contention is true,  the 
matters he refers to would not change the underlying facts of his misconduct.  Failure to 
comply with any of the procedural requirements of imposing nonjudicial punishment 
does not invalidate the Article 15 unless the error “materially prejudiced a substantial 
right of the servicemember.” (MCM 1995, paragraph lh)  The inadvertent failure of his 
commander to consider portions of the applicant’s submissions in response to his Article 
15 would be an error by the commander.  However where those matters had no bearing 
on the underlying facts supporting the charges against the applicant, such as in this case, 
that error would not result in material prejudice to the rights of the applicant.’ We stand 
by OUT original opinion of 7 Nov 97. 

’ 

Recommendation:  ARer a review of the available records, I conclude that 
administrative relief by this office is not appropriate.  There are no substantial legal 
errors requiring corrective action.  I therefore recommend that the Board deny the 
requested relief. 

Associate Chief, Military Justice Division 
Air Force Legal Services Agency 

01/26/98  1 4 : 2 4  
Y Q M - I ~ - ~ ~  

e4 :44. PPI  TOWER 

e 2 1 0  652  4819 

c

,

8 .

.

 

 
, 

* ' :  

c 

SAFIMIBR 

6 7 6 7 S 9 6  

@J002/007 
P . B l  

15 JAN 98 

MEMORANDUM FOR  SAFMIBR 

A m :  CMSGT ANDERSON 

S tibject:  Addeiiduui. Correction to Militmy Records 

O

the&  Training Wing, Staff Judge Advocate end 

1.  Please consider the nttached docunientRlion with regards to m y  application for correction to 
so  m y  attention due to the completion of a I4Q USAFE qoPdift Wine Inspector General 
iirililnry records datcd 29 Sepkmber, 1997. These additional documents haw only receiitly C
investigatioit with fin ciul dnre of I1 Decembcr, 1997. 
2.  Aficr consulring with CaprRin-f 
Cnpirriii Prcsrorr of rhc Area Dtfeinsc Counsel, 1 believe the procedures for administering an 
Aiticlc 15 wci'c" not Rdlrered to.  Essenrinlly, I was denied due process.  I also believe rliat, bawd 
on irry e~~t~rc.~n~lit~~ry 
record, and rviderrcc suppresscd during the hitial and appellate phnses of 
ihe proceedings, che itccd for an Article  I5 would have been negated.  Evidence presented to n ~ y  
Firs Sergemi, specifically, a 2 inch binder with  128 pages of information, wa5 not allowcd.inM 
phases of the Article I5 proceedings.  Our 
considcration during the iiivestigariv 
legal niid Area Defhnsc coiinsel here 
[Irspccror ~icnera~ by t1i 
~IW*AW 
cnmmnndsr. clearly coiifirms this.  I ask you to correct this 
tictinil fiom iiiy records.  I  am sure that each of you on the board would want your records to 
reflect a truc and accurate account of your life in the military and your scrviec to the United 
Scares,  So do I. 

iiclttded that tcstinrotry to 
ations Group 
by eradicating the Aiticlu IS 

3,  Thank you for your time in considering these rnntters.  If you have any qucstiolls, I may 
rcachcd II  DSIJ736-4382 or 7596, 

Auached: 
m m o  fiom ADC, drd  14 Jan 98 
lisi or binder docunrcntntion 

9702979 

'< 

~

 

I 

01/26/96  14:24 
J A W c - 1 6 - 9 8  E34:4$ 
. .  

:. 

\ 

c 

a210 652  4819 

P P l   TPWER 

SAFIMIBR 

6767596 

@ 0 0 3 / 0 0 7  
P. 82 

DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE 
AIR FORCE LWAL SERVICES AaCNCY [AFI.$A) 

MEMORANDUM FOR REVIEWING AUTHORITIES 

FROM:  AFLSNADC 

3 19 K Avenue, Suite 3 
Sheppard AFB  TX 763 1 1 

14 Jan 98 

an Inspector General complaint regarding 
a never received or m k w e d  a 
part of his 

1.  On 8 Sep 97,-filcd 
the subject Article 15 won-Judicial Punishment) proceedings,  The investigation 
confirmed that the Article  15 appellate authority, 
three ring binder containing character evidence submitted by- 
Article 15 presentation. 
2.  According to the Manual for Courts-Martial, Part V, NonJudiclul Pzrnlshment 
Procedure, commanders ordinarily only consider nonjudicial punishment [Article 15) 
when administrative measures are inadequate and the recard qf the servicemembe r 
warrants it.  Furthermorc, nonjudicial punishment is to be considered on an individual 
basis.  Commanders must consider the record o€the service me mber and the eflect of 
nonjudicial punishment on the Servicemcmb er*s rccprd .  Furthermore, once a 
servicemember accepts nonjudicial punishment, the servicemember has a tight to present 
ion and m a t i o n ,  oralIy or in writing.  The Manual does nat 
matters in defense, -t 
limit the manner. amount or farm of ihe mitigating evidence.  Only after considering sll 
of thew relevant matters, may a commander impose punishment.  These same 
considerations apply to the sppellatc authority as he has essentially the same powers (and 
responsibilities) as the offering commander. 

3, Tn this case, evidence shows that -chain 

matters that he submitted as part of his Artkle 15 presentation. 
ommmder and first sergeant admit that thcy “didn’t  know” that the 

a volumc of character evidence was submitted as part of = 

of command failed to include 

-Article 
in essence a summary of-service 
jrstlf that thc affcring commander did not properly consider-sewice 

15 presentation,  The evidence contained in the three ring binder, WRS 

record.  This is substantial proof by 

7 9 0 2 9 7 9 

.

.

 

01/26/98  1 4 ~ 2 5   e 2 1 0  652  481s 

JAy-16-Se  84:?,5  P M  
c 

TOWER 

SAF/MIBR 

6767996 

@ 0 0 4 / 0 0 7  
P. 03 

3

c 

.

 

I '  

record in deciding whether noqjuditial punishment was appropriate and if so, what level 
of punishment was warranted.  Furlhermore, this information was improperly excluded 
c and never considered by the appellate authority. 
was denied the basic due process afforded all 

servicemembers in responding to an Articlc 15. 
4.  If you hove any questions or require further assistance please cafl me at DSN 736- 
21 86. 

Area Defense Counsel 

9702979 

._ 

01/26/98  1 4 : 2 5  

e 2 1 0   652  4819 

J A V - 1 6 - 9 8  

1 

8 4  :4,5.  P M  

-TOWER 

SAFAUIBR 

6767396 

Q 0 0 5 / 0 0 7  
p.a4 

I -  

7 9 o 2 9 7 9 

-_ 

_- 

. t  

D E P A R T M E N T   OF THE A I R   FORCE 

HEADQUARTERS  AIR  FORCE  PERSONNEL CENTER 

RANDOLPH AIR  FORCE  BASE TEXAS 

18 FEB 98 

MEMORANDUM FOR AFBCMR 

FROM:  HQ AFPCLIPPPA 

550 C Street West, Suite 8 
Randolph AFB TX 78150-4710 

Requested Action.  The applicant makes several requests to include removal of an Article 
15, UCMJ, action, dated 6 Aug 96, and the 1 Nov 96 referral enlisted performance report (EPR). 
We will address the EPR issue only. 

Basis for Request.  The applicant contends the Axticle 15 should be removed fiom his 

record because he was advised to withhold testimony he wanted to give in his defense.  Had he 
been allowed to present this testimony, the applicant claims the commander may have elected not 
impose the Article 15.  The applicant believes the referral EPR is a result of the Article 15 action. 

Recommendation.  Deny. 

Facts and Comments. 

a.  The application is timely filed. No similar application was submitted under MI 

36-2401, Correcting Officer and Enlisted Evaluation Reports.  We did not return the application 
since the applicant does not have evaluator support. 

b.  The governing directive is AFI 36-2403, Enlisted Evaluation System, 15 Jul94. 

c.  The contested EPR is an overall “3” With five of the seven performance factors in 

section III marked down one and two blocks from the right.  Factor number four was 
downgraded all the way to the left by the indorser which caused the referral. 

d.  On 6 Aug 96, the applicant received an Article 15 for misuse of a government 

American Express card.  Instead of using the card for offrcial purposes, the applicant used it for 
personal purposes in the sum of $2,182.33.  As a result, he received a reduction in grade to staff 
sergeant and an $800 fine which was suspended.  On 14 Nov 96, the applicant received a letter of 
reprimand (LOR) for disrespect toward a superior commissioned officer.  The misconduct 
involved drawing a skull and crossbones on a blackboard with the flight commander’s first name 
written below it.  On 5 Dec 96, the applicant’s unit commander restored the applicant to technical 

* 

sergeant by suspending the reduction to staff sergeant.  The applicant claims that he has been told 
by several officials that this action should be deleted fiom his record due to certain procedures 
not being followed. 

(1)  The applicant claims his first sergeant dissuaded him from raising certain 

defenses during his personal presentation to the commander’s decision on the Article 15 action. 
He also claims the legal office could not produce the materials he submitted in his defense of the 
Article 15, the Board should conclude the commander never considered the materials at all. 

(2)  In reference to the LOR, the applicant contends he did not made the drawing 
on the blackboard and that he was coerced into accepting the LOR by threats to delay his 
permanent change of station (PCS). The applicant believes the LOR was a fiaudulent action by 
his commander to cover up the reason for his flight commander’s removal fiom her position. 

. 

e.  HQ AFPCDPSFC provided a technical advisory, dated 8 Jan 98, in which they 

address the Article 15 issue.  Upon their review, they determined that a recommendation of 
denial is appropriate.  They state, “The applicant’s current commander apparently believed the 
applicant was treated harshly, because he did suspend the applicant’s grade reduction.  However, 
he left the UIF in place although he had the authority to remove early and still does.  It 
appears ... that the applicant’s current commander rectified any unjust treatment the applicant 
experienced fiom his past commander.” 

f.  HQ AFPC/DPPPW also provided a technical advisory, dated 21 Nov 97, in 
which they discuss which actions will be taken should the applicant’s record be corrected. 

g.  AFLSNJAJM provided two advisories, dated 7 Nov 97 and 27 Jan 98.  (The 

27 Jan 98 advisory was prepared subsequent to the applicant’s submission of new documentation 
in rebuttal to the Article 15.) They do not believe the applicant’s assertions support relief in this 
case, and they concluded that administrative relief is not appropriate. 

h.  The applicant contends the EPR should be removed from his records because his 
evaluators failed to follow appropriate procedures.  As a result, the applicant filed an inspector 
general (IC) complaint, and the applicant states in his brief that a 3,000 page IG report has been 
sent to the Board.  Neither the 3,000 page report nor a summary report of inquiry are included 
with this appeal.  Regardless of whether or not the IG report determines the LOR or Article 15 
were handled inappropriately, this does not negate the behavior noted on the EPR regarding the 
misuse of the credit card.  We note there is no comment on the EPR regarding the LOR or the 
reason he received the LOR.  The applicant, himself, does not dispute the fact that he abused the 
credit card.  For this reason, the EPR should remain a valid document filed in the applicant’s 
master personnel record group. 

i.  The applicant also contends the EPR shows a report period of 366 days of. 

supervision. He states he was on temporary duty (TDY) for 166 days during that period, and the 
number of days should reflect 200 days of supervision. The applicant has not substantiated this 
claim with supporting documentation to ver@  the number of days of supervision is incorrect. 

2 

One thing the applicant should keep in mind is that AFI 36-2403, paragraph 4.3.9.2, states 30 or 
more consecutive calendar days during which the ratee did not perform normal duties under the 
rater’s supervision will be deducted fiom the number of days supervision. If the applicant is able 
to substantiate his TDY(s) were 30 or more consecutive days in length; i.e., travel vouchers, then 
we would not object to adjusting the number of days of supervision on the contested EPR. 

j.  We note that the indorser on the contested referral EPR was either the rater or 

indorser on the applicant’s three previous EPRs in which he received “5s”  and firewalled reports. 
This proves that an evaluation report is written to document the performance for a specific period 
of time based on the pe&ormance noted during that period, not based on based on previous 
pedormmce/conduct. This does not allow for changes in the ratee’s performaneelconduct and 
does not follow the intent of the governing regulation, AFI 36-2403.  It appears the rater and 
indorser carried out their responsibilities as they were charged to do. 

Summary.  Based on the findings of AFLSNJAJM and HQ AFPCDPSFC, we strongly 

urge the AFBCMR to deny the appeal to void the EPR.  The behavior noted in the EPR did, 
indeed, occur, and the applicant is essentially asking to wipe his slate clean for a fresh start.  This 
cannot happen. 

hIi4p  l.& 

JOYCE E. HOGAN 
Chief, BCMR and SSB Section 
Directorate of Pers Program Mgt 

3 

9702979 

.. 

DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE 

WASHINGTON, DC 

Office of the Assistant Secretary 

AFBCMR 97-02979 

MEMORANDUM FOR THE CHIEF OF STAFF 

Having received and considered the recommendation of the Air Force Board for Correction 
of Military Records and under the authority of Section 1552, Title 10, United States Code (70A 
Stat 1 16), it is directed that: 

records. ,'I 

he Air Force relating to 
cted to show that the Letter of 
eclared void and removed from his 

Air Force Review Boards Agency