'. . 

, * 

AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

JUL  14 898 

IN THE MATTER OF: 

DOCKET NUMBER:  97-03570 

COUNSEL:  NONE 

HEARING DESIRED:  NO 

1 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

1.  Her Senior Airman stripe be restored with restoration of her 
Basic Allowance for Quarters  (BAQ) entitlement. 

2.  The  Enlistment  Performance  Report  (EPR)  rendered  for  the 
period 17 November 1995 through 20 December 1996 be declared void 
and removed from her records. 

t 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

She  takes  full  responsibility for her  actions  that  resulted  in 
the  nonjudicial  punishment  proceedings.  However,  she  believes 
that  the punishment  was  harsh and unjust.  She states that  she 
has  been  in  the Air  Force  over  six years  and  has  an  excellent 
record prior  to getting into trouble with  her  government credit 
card.  She also states that she was under a great deal of stress 
during the period she charged on her government credit card.  Her 
parents  were  divorcing  and  she  was  experiencing  financial 
problems. 

In  regard  to  the  leave, she  indicates that  her  leaving earlier 
than the date scheduled was just a mistake and she did not intend 
to cheat the leave regulations. 

In support of  the appeal, applicant submits statements from her 
former supervisor and a co-worker.  The statement from her former 
supervisor indicates that the applicant's  nonjudicial punishment 
proves  that  it  was  "a  one mistake  Air  Force" and  reversed the 
concept of Article  15's  as  a  rehabilitating tool.  He  believes 
this  one  error  should  not  be  the  determining  factor  in 
determining the applicant's  military future and that he has never 
seen such a career ruining method of discipline for a first time 
offense.  He also  states that the offense did  not  hurt  the Air 
Force  since  collection  arrangements  were  made  with  American 
Express prior to the disciplinary action. 

. 

97-03570 

Applicant's complete submission is attached at Exhibit A. 

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 

Applicant  is  currently  serving  in the  Regular Air  Force  in  the 
grade of airman first class. 

;On 6  December  1996,  applicant  was  notified  of  her  commander's 
intent to initiate nonjudicial punishment proceedings against her 
for one specification in violation of Article  86 of the Uniform 
Code  of  Military  Justice  (UCMJ),  and  two 
specifications  in 
violation  of  Article  92  of  the  UCMJ. 
The  Article  86  offense 
involved a  situation where  the  applicant left  two  days  earlier 
than  indicated  on  a  leave  request.  The  Article  92 violations 
involved  abusing  her  government  travel  charge  card. 
The 
applicant  used  the  card  for  other  than  official  purchases  and 
allowed  the  credit  card  account  to  become  delinquent.  After 
consulting with  counsel,  the  applicant  accepted  the Article  15 
proceeding.  She did not request a personal appearance before the 
commander  and  submitted matters  in writing  for  her  commander's 
consideration.  On  13  December  1996,  the  commander  found  the 
applicant  did  commit  the  alleged  offenses  and  imposed  a 
punishment consisting of axeduction to the grade of Airman First 
Class,  suspended  forfeitures of  $140.00  pay  per  month  for  two 
months and a reprimand.  She did not appeal the punishment. 

Applicant's  performance  reports  rendered since 1992 reflect the 
following: 

PERIOD ENDING 

OVERALL EVALUATION 

31 Dec 92 
14 Nov 93 
16 Nov 94 
16 Nov 95 
20 Dec 96 
20 Dec 97 
*  Contested Report 

* 

4 
5 
5 
5 
3 
5 

AIR FORCE EVALUATION : 
The  Chief  Inquiries/AFBCMR  Section,  Enlisted  Promotion  Branch, 
AFPC/DPPPWB, reviewed this application and indicated that should 
the  Board  set  the Article  15 aside  and  restore  the  applicant's 
grade  to  Senior  Airman  and  remove  the  referral  EPR  as  she 
requests,  she  would  be  eligible  for  supplemental  promotion 
consideration to Staff Sergeant for the-  9735 cycle provided  she 
is otherwise qualified and recommended by her commander.  Even if 

. 

2 

97-03570 

is otherwise qualified and recommended by her commander.  Even if 
the  applicant's  requests are approved, it is extremely doubtful 
her  commander would have recommended her  for promotion  to Staff 
Sergeant for the 97E5 cycle based on the reasons she was demoted 
and received the referral EPR. 

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

The Chief, BCMR and SSB Section, Directorate of Personnel Program 
Management, AFPC/DPPPAB, reviewed this application and indicates 
that  the  applicant has  provided  a memorandum  from the  rater  of 
'  the  contested  report.  However,  he  does  not  substantiate  the 
report  was  inaccurate,  nor  that  he  made  an  error  when  he 
evaluated  the  applicant's  performance. 
Applicant  does  not 
include  any  substantial  information  from  the  indorser  of  the 
report.  The  statements  from  outside  the  rating  chain  are  not 
germane  to  this  case.  While  the  individuals  are  entitled  to 
their opinions of the applicant, they have provided no reason to 
believe they were in a better position to assess the applicant's 
duty  performance  during  the  contested  period  than  those 
specifically  charged  with  this  evaluation. 
It  appears  the 
contested  report  was  accomplished  in  accordance  with  Air  Force 
policy in effect at the time it was rendered. 

The  applicant  contends  that  the  report  is  inconsistent  with 
previous performance.  It is not  feasible to compare one report 
covering a certain period 'of time with another report covering a 
different period of time. 

It is interesting to note that the applicant was both  the Leave 
and American Express card program manager.  As  such, she was the 
resident  "expert" within  the  unit  responsible  for  educating 
others  of  the  applicable  rules  governing each  of  the  programs. 
It is apparent the applicant  fails to recognize the  seriousness 
of  her  misconduct.  If  they  were  to  recommend  approval  of  her 
request to  strike the  EPR  from her  record  on  the basis  that  it 
was  the  result  of  "an  unfortunate error  in  judgment", and  she 
subsequently attained supervisory status, would that not make it 
appropriate for the applicant to excuse such behavior from people 
under  her  supervision? 
The  applicant  contends  she  had  no 
criminal  intent  in  mind  when  she  misused  the  credit  card  or 
falsified her  leave paperwork, rather she, without  forethought, 
"just did it" because she was under stress.  Perhaps if she had 
confided in her  supervisor when  she discovered the error in her 
checkbook, 
supervisory 
recommendations" he later contends he was unable to offer when he 
was  serving  as  the  Acting  First  Sergeant.  Applicant  further 
justifies her action by claiming she intended to pay the balance 
on the credit card when the bill came in.  Are  they expected to 
believe  that  just  because  she intended to pay  the balance,  she 
did  not  disobey  directives  for which  she  was  the  "expert" and 
deliberately misused the credit card? 

"provided 

her 

he 

could 

have 

3 

. 

-I 

I . ,  
I

,

 

97- 03570 

In conclusion, AFPC/DPPPAB states that a review of the documents 
provided does not reveal a violation of regulatory provisions or 
indicate  an  injustice  has  occurred.  Therefore,  they  strongly 
recommend applicant's  request for removal of the contested EPR be 
denied. 

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

The Associate Chief, Military  Justice Division, Air  Force Legal 
,Services Agency,  AFLSA/JAJM,  also  reviewed  this application and 
'states that  the  applicant  admits  to  the  conduct  which  was  the 
basis of the Article 15 nonjudicial punishment proceedings.  The 
applicant believes  she was  treated unfairly because part  of the 
commander's  punishment  was  a  reduction  in  grade. 
She  also 
believes her  outstanding record was not taken into account when 
the commander imposed punishment.  It may be that the commander, 
in fact, mitigated the action from a court-martial to an Article 
15  based  upon  the  applicant's  prior  outstanding  service.  The 
applicant asked her  commander to mitigate her punishment within 
four months of the action.  The applicant indicates the commander 
informed her that she did not deserve it.  Not being privy to the 
facts and circumstances at  the time of  the applicant's  request, 
the benefit of the doubt should be given to the commander unless 
the  applicant  provides  compelling  evidence  of  unfair  and 
impartial treatment.  There appears to be no abuse of discretion 
when  the  commander  imposed punishment.  Although  the  applicant 
disagrees with  her  commander's  punishment,  there  is  nothing  in 
the  applicant's  materials  that  would  suggest  the  commander's 
actions were anything but fair and impartial.  After a review of 
the  available records, they  conclude that administrative relief 
is  not  appropriate. 
There  are  no  legal  errors  requiring 
corrective  action. 
Therefore,  they  recommend  denial  of 
applicant's  request. 

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

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

On  9  March  1998,  copies  of  the  Air  Force  evaluations  were 
forwarded to the applicant for review and response within thirty 
(30) days.  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. 

4 

. 

97-03570 

2.  The application was timely filed. 

3.  Insufficient  relevant  evidence  has  been  presented  to 
demonstrate  the  existence  of  probable  error  or  injustice.  We 
took notice of the applicant's complete submission in judging the 
merits  of  the  case;  however,  we  agree  with  the  opinion  and 
recommendation of the Air Force and adopt their rationale as the 
basis  for  our  conclusion  that  the  applicant  has  not  been  the 
victim  of  an error  or  injustice.  Therefore, in the  absence of 
,substantial evidence to the contrary, we find no compelling 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  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  10 June  1998, under  the provisions  of AFI 
36-2603: 

Ms. Martha Maust, Panel Chair 
Mr. Gregory H. Petkoff, Member 
Mr. Michael P. Higgins, Member 

The following documentary evidence was considered: 

Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 20 Nov 97, w/atchs. 
Applicant's Master Personnel Kecords. 
Exhibit B. 
Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPWB, dated 18 Dec 97, w/atchs. 
Exhibit D.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPPAB, dated 14 Jan 98. 
Exhibit E.  Letter, AFLSA/JAJM, dated 17 Feb 98. 
Exhibit F.  Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 9 Mar 98. 

MRTHA MA US^ 
Panel Chair 

5