AIR  FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARYaXW D 

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

bL? ,!!  1998 

IN THE MATTER OF: 

DOCKET NUMBER:  97-03508 
COUNSEL:  NONE 

HEARING DESIRED:  NO 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

The  Enlisted  Performance  Report  (EPR) rendered  for  the  period 
13 December, 1995  through  12  December  1996,  be  removed  and 
declared void. 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

The  contested  report  is  an  inaccurate  assessment  of  his 
performance during the contested period. 

The  applicant  states he  believes  there  is an  unjust  comment in 
Section VI  and  that  the  integrity of  the  entire EPR  system was 
breached in this report. 

In support of the appeal, applicant submits a personal statement, 
the contested report, performance feedback worksheet, AF Form 948 
with appeal decision, warrant arrest, and other documentation. 
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 technical sergeant. 

The applicant appealed the contested report under the provisions 
of  AFI  36-2401,  Correcting  Officer  and  Enlisted  Evaluation 
Reports,  and  the  appeal  was  considered  and  denied  by  the 
Evaluation Report Appeal Board  (ERAB). 
APR/EPR profile since 1993 reflects the following: 

PERIOD ENDING 
14 Aug 93 
31 May 94 
12 Dec 94 

OVERALL EVALUATION 

5 
5 
5 

12 Dec 95 
12 Dec 96 

* 

*  Contested report. 

5 
4 

97- 02238 

AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 
The Chief, BCMR  &  SSB Section, Directorate of  Personnel Program 
Management, HQ AFPC/DPPPAB, reviewed this application and states 
that  although  the  rater  contends  the  applicant  would  have 
received  a  ‘ 5 “   had  he  not  been  involved  in  an  alcohol  related 
incident,  she  does  not  admit  she  erred  when  she  rendered  the 
evaluation  report. 
The  applicant  believes  the  report  is 
inconsistent  because  the  comments  in  Section  V  do  not  support 
ratings given in Sections I11 and IV.  In particular, he points 
out  the  rater  marked  the  ”Acceptable“  block  in  Section  111, 
paragraph 4, rather than the “Unacceptable” block.  The applicant 
asserts ”HOW can the fact that I had an alcohol related incident 
which caused me to lose my base driving privileges for a year be 
deemed  “ACCEPTABLE”? 
I  would  think  this  would  be  considered 
UNACCEPTABLE behavior.”  They  agree.  Alcohol  related  incidents 
are  “unacceptable. “  They,  therefore, determine  the  applicant’s 
supervisor  marked  the  “Acceptable”  block  in  Section  111, 
paragraph  4,  to  preclude  rendering  the  applicant  a  referral 
report, with perhaps even a lower overall rating.  She obviously 
considered him to be an exceptional performer, who had a one-time 
breach  of  judgment,  and  therefore, was  willing  to give  him  the 
benefit  of  the  doubt. 
In  the  absence  of  information  from 
evaluators,  official  substantiation  of  error  or  injustice  from 
the Inspector General  (IG) or Social Actions is appropriate, but 
not  provided  in  this  case.  The  letter  from outside  the  rating 
chain  is  not  germane  to  this  case.  While  the  individual  is 
entitled  to his  opinion  of  the  applicant, we  do not  believe  he 
was  in  a  better  position  to  evaluate  the  applicant’s  duty 
performance  than  those  who  were  specifically charged  with  this 
responsibility. 

The  contested EPR  was  rendered to the  applicant  as  a  result  of 
unacceptable  off-duty  behavior.  A  court  of  law  found  him  not 
guilty  of  driving  under  the  influence,  his  base  commander 
considered  drinking  any  amount  of  alcohol  and  driving,  to be  a 
serious  offense  worthy  of  reproof  and  this  impropriety  was 
reflected  in  his  EPR. 
Therefore,  they  recommend  denial  of 
applicant‘s request. 

A  complete copy  of  the  evaluation, with  attachment, is  attached 
at Exhibit C. 

97-02238 

The Chief, Inquiries/AFBCMR Section, Airman Promotion Branch, HQ 
AFPC/DPPPWB,  also  reviewed  this  application  and  states  that 
should  the  Board  void  the  contested  report,  and  providing  the 
applicant  is  otherwise  eligible,  he  will  be  entitled  to 
supplemental consideration beginning with the 9737 cycle. 
A complete copy of their evaluation is attached at Exhibit D. 

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

The applicant reviewed the advisory opinions and states there are 
inconsistencies  in  the  way  his  EPR  was  written. 
He  is  not 
admitting  that  his  behavior  was  unacceptable. 
The  rater's 
comments in the EPR  failed to justify a low rating for conduct. 
When  this  situation  first  occurred, he  filed  a  report  with  the 
Inspector  General's  office.  However,  their  findings was-  there 
are  other  channels  to  take  to  have  the  EPR  corrected.  The 
applicant  states  if the  rating  chain  thought  that  his  behavior 
was  unacceptable,  some  form  of  counseling  should  have  been 
administered.  It was not.  The rater stated had it not been for 
the alcohol related incident, the EPR  would have been a " 5 " .  
The 
question is whether this comment belongs in this report and is it 
a just comment? 

The  Command  Section  for  the  squadron  never  made  him  enter  the 
Substance Abuse Reorientation and Treatment  (SART) Program.  The 
AFI clearly states Awareness Education is the minimum requirement 
for  a  member  involved  in  a  substance  abuse  incident.  If  his 
first  sergeant  and  command  section  felt  that  this  wasn' t 
applicable, they didn't  feel this was a substance abuse incident. 

This appeal is not about a couple of points on a promotion test. 
This is about  clearing my  professional conscious and  not making 
me  pay  dearly  for  something  that  I  shouldn't  have  to  pay  for. 
It's  about being  fair.  It's  about having my  EPR  accurate based 
on fact and not opinion. 

Applicant's complete response is attached at Exhibit F. 

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT: 

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

2.  The application was timely filed. 

97-02238 

3.  Sufficient  relevant  evidence  has  been  presented  to 
demonstrate  the  existence  of  probable  error  or  injustice. 
Applicant  was  involved  in  an  alcohol  related  incident  and  the 
contested EPR contains comments concerning the incident.  We note 
that  the  applicant  was  found  not  guilty  of  driving  under  the 
influence of alcohol in a civilian court of  law.  While we note 
that  the  decision  of  the  civilian  court  does  not  render  the 
contested  report  flaw,  we  do  believe  that,  based  on  the 
circumstances of the incident and after taking into consideration 
applicant's  prior  and  subsequent  performance,  the  contested 
report  is  unduly  harsh.  We  also  believe  that  the  applicant's 
behavior  was  an  isolated  incident.  In  view  of  the  above,  we 
recommend the contested EPR be declared void and removed from his 
records.  In addition, we  recommend he be  provided  supplemental 
promotion consideration to the grade of master sergeant for cycle 
9737. 

THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: 

The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force 
relating  to  APPLICANT,  be  corrected  to  show  that  the  Enlisted 
Performance  Report  (EPR), AF  Form  910, rendered  for  the  period 
13 December  1995 through 12 December 1996, be  declared void  and 
removed from his records. 
It is further recommended that applicant be provided supplemental 
consideration for promotion  to the grade of master  sergeant for 
all appropriate cycles beginning with cycle 9737. 
If  AFPC  discovers  any  adverse  factors  during  or  subsequent  to 
supplemental  consideration  that  are  separate  and  apart,  and 
unrelated to the issues involved in this application, that would 
have  rendered  the  applicant  ineligible  for  the  promotion,  such 
information will be  documented and presented to the board  for a 
final  determination  on  the  individual's  qualification  for  the 
promotion. 
If supplemental promotion consideration results in the selection 
for  promotion  to  the  higher  grade,  immediately  after  such 
promotion  the  records  shall  be  corrected  to  show  that  he  was 
promoted  to the higher grade on the date of rank established by 
the  supplemental promotion  and  that he  is  entitled  to  all pay, 
allowances, and benefits of such grade as of that date. 

The following members of the Board considered this application in 
Executive Session on 27 August  1998, under the provisions of AFI 
36-2603: 

4 

97-02238 

Mr. David W. Mulgrew, Panel Chair 
Mr. Jackson A. Hauslein, Member 
Mr. Terry A. Yonkers, Member 

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

Applicant's Master Personnel Records. 

Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 18 Nov 97. 
Exhibit B. 
Exhibit C.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPPAB, dated 13 Dec 97. 
Exhibit D.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPPAB, dated 7 Jan 98, w/atch. 
Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 27 Jan 98. 
Exhibit F.  Applicant's  Response, dated 26 Feb 98, w/atch. 

Panel Chair 

5 

DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE 

WASHINGTON, DC 

SEP 2 3 1998 

Office of the Assihnt Secretary 

AFBCMR 97-03508 

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 116), it is directed that: 

records of the Department of the Air Force relating to 1 

)e corrected to show that the Enlisted Performance Report, M Fonii 
5) 10, rendered for the period 13 December 1995 through 12 December 1996, be, and hereby is, 
declared void and removed fiom his records. 

It is further directed that he be provided supplemental consideration for promotion to the 

grade of master sergeant for all appropriate cycles beginning with cycle 97E7. 

If AFPC discovers any adverse factors during or subsequent to supplemental consideration 

that are separate and apart, and unrelated to the issues involved in this application, that would 
have rendered the applicant ineligible for the promotion, such information will be documented 
and presented to the board for a final determination on the individual’s qualification for the 
promotion. 

If supplemental promotion consideration results in the selection for promotion to the higher 
grade, immediately after such promotion the records shall be corrected to show that he was 
promoted to the higher grade on the date of rank established by the supplemental promotion and 
that he is entitled to all pay, allowances, and benefits of such grade as of that date.