4 

AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

SEP 11 1998 

IN THE MATTER OF: 

DOCKET NUMBER:  97-02709 

m 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  2 8   October  1993  and 
18 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 kn an ENT environment as his career counterparts, --I_ 
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  f o r   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. 

.. 

5 

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. 
T h e   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 
off  duty. 
The  EPR  for  the  period  2  April  1994  through 
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: 

- 

4 

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. 

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 
Commanders  have  the  option  to 
acceptable  duty  performance. 
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  that  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  of  human  nature,  an 
individual's  self-assessment  of  performance  is  often  somewhat 
gLorif ied  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 

- 
- -  
-. 
,-__ 

c 

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 
His  supervisor  accurately  portrayed  the  applicant's 
him. 
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 reports were  accomplished in direct 
accordance with Air Force policy in effect at the time they were 
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 9736. 
A complete copy of their evaluation is attached at Exhibit E. 

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 
The applicant reviewed the Air Force evaluations and states that 
the  recommendations  from  DPPPAB  and  DPSFC  appear  to  be -  - 
opinionated and not based on facts nor supported by any clear Air 
Force  Regulation  or  civilian  law  holding  military  members 
financially responsible for a  spouses alleged  failure to  honor 
their debts.  He states, in fact, their recommendation is based 
on  the  unsupported  assumption  that  military  members  are 
responsible for their spouse's debt regardless of whether or not 
they were  a party  to a  contract or loan agreement.  He notes, 
members  are  responsible  for  dependents  when  it  concerns 
destruction  of  government property.  He  does  not  know of  any 
requirement of an individual to be responsible for the actions of 
another emancipated adult without  a  court order requiring that 
individual to be  liable for the debt.  For which, in this case 
has not been accomplished. 

4 

97-02709 

In  further  review  of  his  appeal,  he  contacted 
the  NCOIC, 
Commanders Programs Branch, and asked him  to prepare 
a response 
to  the  question  “Are  military  members  responsible 
for  their 
spouse’s  debt  and  should  letters  of  reprimand 
and  other 
disciplinary tools be used against them for financial incursions 
of their spouse?”  He also asked for clarification of the current 
Air 
36-2906,  Financial 
Responsibility.  He  (the applicant) provided a copy of an E-mail 
document referencing AFI 36-2906. 

Instruction 

Force 

AFI 

Applicant’s complete response, with attachments, is attached at 
Exhibit G . 

THE  BOARD CONCLUDES THAT: 
1.  The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by existing 
laws or regulations. 

2.  The  application was  not  timely  filed; however, it is  in the 
interest of justice to excuse the failure to timely file. 

3.  Sufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate 
the existence of probable error or injustice.  After reviewing the 
evidence of record, we believe that the contested EPRs  and LORs are 
unduly harsh based on the circumstances involved during the periods 
in question.  It appears that applicant is being punished for debts 
his wife incurred.  In addition, we note that applicant‘s financial 
problems  were  caused  due  to  his  short  notice  to  PCS  overseas. 
Applicant  incurred many  problems trying  to prepare  for  this move 
and  under  the  circumstances,  we  can  understand  why  he  incurred 
financial  problems. 
In  view  of  the  totality  of  the  evidence 
submitted and in the interest of justice and equity, we believe the 
contested E P R s   and  LORs  should be  declared void  and  removed from 
his records.  In addition, we recommend he be provided supplemental 
promotion consideration beginning with cycle 9736.  His request for 
supplemental promotion consideration for cycles 9536 and  9636 was 
reviewed; however, it  has been  determinedEthat he would  not  have 
been selected by these cycles with a corrected record. 

THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: 
The pertinent military records of  the Department of  the Air  Force 
relating to APPLICANT, be corrected to show that: 

a.  The  Enlisted  Performance Reports, AF  Forms  910, 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. 

5 

97-02709 

I 

b. 

The  Letters  of  Reprimand  dated  28  October  1993  and 

18 January 1994, be declared void and removed from his records. 
It is  further recommended that  applicant be provided supplemental 
consideration for promotion to the grade of technical sergeant for 
all appropriate cycles beginning with cycle CY97E6. 
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  f o r   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 applicant was promoted 
to  the  higher  grade  on  the  date  of  rank  established  by  the 
supplemental promotion and that applicant  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  6 August  1998, under  the  provisions  of  AFI 
36-2603 : 

Mr. Charles E. Bennett, Panel Chair 
Mr. Loren S. Perlstein, Member 
Ms. Peggy E. Gordon, Member 
Ms. Phyllis L. Spence, Examiner  (without vote) 

All  members  voted  to  correct  the  records, as  recommended.  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/DPPPWB, dated 23 Feb 98. 
Exhibit E. Letter, AFPC/DPPPAB, dated 27 Feb 98. 
Exhibit F. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 23 Mar 98. 
Exhibit G .  Applicant's Response, dated 8 Apr 98, w/atchs. 

n 

- 

Panel Chair 

6 

DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE 

WASHINGTON, DC 

SEP 1.1 1998 

Office of the Assistant Secretary 

AFBCMR 97-02709 

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, Unite3 States 
Code (70A Stat 116), it is directed that: 

ds of the Department of the Air Force relating 
corrected to show that: 

.  a.  The Enlisted Performance Reports, AF Forms 910, rendered for the periods 

2 April 1993 through 1 April 1994 and 2 April 1994 through 15 November 1994, be, and hereby 
are, declared void and removed from his records. 

b.  The Letters of Reprimand dated 28 October 1993 and  18 January 1994, be, and 

hereby are, declared void and removed from his records. 

It is further directed that applicant be provided supplemental consideration for promotion 

to the grade of technical sergeant for all appropriate cycles beginning with cycle CY97E6. 

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 seLeiGon-for pro-motion to the 
higher grade, immediately after such promotion the records shall becorrected to show that 
applicant was promoted to the higher grade on the date of rank established by the supplemental 
promotion and that applicant is entitled to all pay, allowances, and benefits of such grade as of 
that date. 

I/  Air Force Review Boards Agency