AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

IN THE MATTER OF: 

DOCKET NUMBER:  98-02061 

COUNSEL:  None 

HEARING DESIRED:  No 

MAR 

5  lggg 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

The  Enlisted  Performance  Report  (EPR) rendered  for  the  period 
27 Apr 95 through 13 Nov 95 be declared void and removed from his 
records. 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

The  contested  report  was  generated  as  a  result  of  disciplinary 
action  taken  against  him  which  has  since been  determined  to be 
unjust,  unwarranted,  and  unfounded  and  has  been  set  aside  at 
Headquarters ACC level. 

Applicant’s complete submission is attached at Exhibit A. 

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 

The  applicant’s  Total  Active  Federal  Military  Service  Date 
(TAFMSD) is 8 Jul 76.  He is currently serving in the Regular Air 
Force  (RegAF) in  the  grade  of  master  sergeant,  effective,  and 
with a date of rank  (DOR) of 1 Feb 93. 

Applicant’s EPR profile since 1991 follows: 

PERIOD ENDING 

OVERALL EVALUATION 

11 Jul 91 
11 Dec 91 
9 Aug 92 
9 Aug 93 
26 Apr 94 
26 Apr 95 
*  13 Nov 95 

28 Jan 97 
28 Jan 98 
31 Jul 98 
*  Contested EPR. 

AFBCMR 98-0206 1 

5 
5 
5 

On  13 Nov  95,  the  applicant  was  served  an  Article  15,  Uniform 
Code  of  Military  Justice  (UCMJ), for violating Articles  92 and 
134  for  on  or  about  11 Oct  95,  violating  a  lawful  general 
regulation by  wrongfully  concealing or  conspiring  to  conceal  a 
disqualifying factor for military service of a United States Air 
Force  recruit,  and,  for  on  or  about  11 Oct  95,  wrongfully 
soliciting  C----  G----  ,  a  United  States  Air  Force  recruit,  to 
fraudulently conceal facts pertaining to his prior rejection for 
military service on United States Air Force enlistment documents. 
Applicant  waived  his  right to  a  court-martial and  accepted  the 
Article 15 proceeding. 

On  8 Dec  95,  the  Area  Defense  Counsel  (ADC), Wright-Patterson 
AFB, Ohio, requested the commander look at the incident again and 
deem  the Article  15  action  to be  inappropriate for  the  alleged 
incident and  terminate the proceedings.  The ADC  indicated that 
AFI 51-202 states that nonjudicial punishment should be used as a 
last  resort  and  that  other  administrative  actions  should  be 
considered prior to administering an Article 15.  The ADC further 
stated that the applicant never had any other kind of discipline 
in his  entire  18-year career and  to give him  an Article  15  for 
something he  had  no  control  over  was  not  fair  and  was  without 
merit. 

After both a written and personal presentation, on 5 Jan 96, the 
commander  imposed  nonjudicial  punishment  upon  the  applicant 
consisting  of  a  reprimand.  Applicant  appealed  the  Article 15 
action on 12 Jan 96; however, the appellate authority denied his 
request.  The  Article 15  was  filed  in  applicant's  Unfavorable 
Information File  (UIF).  As  a  result of  these proceedings,  the 
applicant was also relieved from recruiting service and received 
a Letter of Reprimand  (LOR) on 23 Feb 96 for allegedly disobeying 
a direct order by contacting and visiting recruiting offices. 

On 22 Apr  96, the applicant requested a set aside action of the 
nonjudicial punishment;  however, his  request was  not  acted upon 
by his commander. 

requested  the 
On  6 Sep  96,  the  ADC, 
Article  15  imposed  on  t 
The  ADC 
indicated that once the commander evaluated all the circumstances 
surrounding the  allegations,  she  would  find  that  applicant  did 
not  commit  the  offenses  of  Articles  92  and  134. 
Thus, 
nonjudicial punishment was a clear injustice. 

side. 

On 1 Oct 96, the successor in command to the imposing officer, in 
the  best  interest  of  the  Air  Force,  set  aside  the  nonjudicial 
punishment  action  imposed  on  the  applicant. 
The  commander 

2 

AFBCMR 98-0206 1 

reviewed  the  Article  15,  supporting  documentation  and  the 
applicant‘s presentation, before reaching the conclusion that the 
applicant  did  not  commit  the  offenses  alleged. 
The  unusual 
circumstances  which  the  commander  believed  overcame  the  four- 
month rule beyond which set asides may normally occur happened as 
a result of the non-response by the applicant’s former commander. 
Applicant was assigned to the successor commander‘s squadron and 
she acted on his request.  On 2 Oct 96, the Staff Judge Advocate 
received the Record of Supplementary Action Under Article  15 and 
it was found legally sufficient. 

The  applicant  filed  two  similar  appeals  under  AFI  36-2401, 
Correcting  Officer  and  Enlisted  Evaluation  Reports.  On  1 0   Feb 
97,  the  Evaluations  Reports  Appeal  Board  (ERAB)  removed  a 
statement from Section V  (Rater’s Comments) :  “MSgt W----  failed 
to  ensure  that  a  disqualified  applicant  divulged  all 
disqualifying  factors  during  enlistment  processing  resulting in 
his  removal  as  a  flight  supervisor  and  his  release  from 
recruiting duty” but denied his request to void the report in its 
entirety.  On 2 Jun 98, the ERAB denied his second request. 

AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

The  Chief,  Inquiries/AFBCMR Section, AFPC/DPPPWB,  reviewed this 
application and indicated that the first cycle the contested EPR 
was used in the promotion process was  9738  (promotions effective 
Apr  97 -  Mar  98).  If the contested report is removed, he would 
be entitled to supplemental promotion consideration to the grade 
of senior master  sergeant beginning with the 97E8 cycle provided 
he is recommended by his commander and is otherwise eligible. 

A  complete  copy  of  the  Air  Force  evaluation  is  attached  at 
Exhibit B. 

The Acting Chief, BCMR  &  SSB Section, AFPC/DPPPAB, also reviewed 
this application and indicated that Air  Force policy  is that an 
evaluation report is accurate as written when it becomes a matter 
of record and to effectively challenge an EPR, it is necessary to 
hear  from  all  the  members  of  the  rating  chain-not  only  for 
support  but  for  clarification/explanation.  The  applicant  has 
failed to provide  any information/support from the  rating chain 
on  the  contested  EPR. 
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. 
In  this  instance,  the  applicant 
contends another rater should have written his evaluation report 
because  she  directly  supervised him  for  216  days  prior  to  his 
permanent  change  of  station  (PCS) move. 
However,  DPPPAB  has 
nothing  official,  such as  an AF  Form  2096,  to  substantiate his 
contention. 
He  included  several  memorandums  and  character 
references from outside the rating chain of the contested report; 
however, while  these  individuals are  entitled to their opinions 

3 

. 

AFBCMR 98-0206 1 

of  the  applicant  and  his  duty  performance,  DPPPAB  does  not 
believe they were in a better position to render an evaluation of 
the  applicant’s  duty  performance  during  the  specific  reporting 
period than those specifically charged with  that responsibility. 
It appears that the report was accomplished in direct accordance 
with applicable regulations. 

In regard to applicant‘s contentions that his rating chain placed 
undue  emphasis  on  an  isolated  incident,  it  is  the  evaluator’s 
responsibility to consider incidents, their significance, and the 
frequency  they  occur  when  assessing performance  and  potential. 
Only  the  rater  knows  how  much  an  incident  influenced  the  EPR; 
therefore,  the  opinions  of  the  individuals  outside  the  rating 
chain are not relevant. 

While  the  applicant  contends  the  contested EPR  is  inconsistent 
with  previous  and  subsequent performance, it is not  feasible to 
compare one report covering a certain period of time with another 
report covering a different period of time.  This does not allow 
for changes  in  the  ratee’s performance and  does  not  follow the 
intent  of  the  governing  regulation, AFI  36-2403.  The  EPR  was 
designed to provide a rating for a specific period of time based 
on the performance noted during that period. 

Regarding  applicant‘s  contentions  that  the  EPR  is  inconsistent 
with the awards he received during the reporting period and that 
the rater failed to gather input from the individual to whom he 
directly  reported  during  the  contested  reporting  period,  Air 
Force  policy  charges  a  rater  to  examine  the  results  of  the 
ratee’s work and get meaningful information from the ratee and as 
many  sources  as  possible  in  order  to  render  an  accurate 
assessment  of  the  individual.  It  is  not  up  to  the  ratee  to 
determine which accomplishments will appear on an EPR or whether 
or not it is an accurate assessment of his performance.  Rather, 
it  is  the  rater’s  responsibility to  determine  the  achievements 
that will  be  reflected on the evaluation report.  The applicant 
fails to realize  or understand that, by  virtue of 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. 

While the applicant contends that a personality conflict existed 
between  him  and  the  members  of  his  rating  chain,  in  worker- 
supervisor relationships, some disagreements are likely to occur 
since  a  worker  must  abide  by  a  supervisor’s  policies  and 
decisions.  Personnel who do not perform at expected standards or 
require  close  supervision  may  believe  that  an  evaluator  is 
personally  biased;  however,  the  conflict  generated  by  this 
personal attention is usually professional rather than personal. 

The applicant contends that the contested report was rendered as 
a  direct  result  of  an  Article  15. 
DPPPAB  concurs  with 
Headquarters  AFPC/DPPPAE‘s  2 Jun  98  decision  memorandum. 
The 

4 

AFBCMR 98-0206 1 

report was rendered based on a change of reporting official  (CRO) 
action, not  his  receipt  of  an  Article  15.  The  ERAB  removed  a 
statement in Section V  which referred to the Article  15 and the 
applicant's  documentation  does  not  prove  the  remainder  of  the 
information on the EPR is inaccurate or related to the Article 15 
action.  Based on the evidence provided, DPPPAB recommends denial 
of the application. 

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

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

Applicant reviewed the Air  Force evaluations and provided a six- 
page  response and  a  statement requesting his  EPR  closing 31 Jul 
98 be added to his original package  (see Exhibit E). 

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 
warranting removal of the contested report.  Our decision hinged 
on  the  statement  provided  by  the  applicant's  commander,  dated 
3 Mar  98. 
Based  on  the  content  of  the  statement,  we  are 
persuaded that the contested report was written based  solely on 
the Article 15 punishment.  In this respect, the commander stated 
that he was  concerned about the accuracy and appropriateness of 
the  substandard performance  report written during  the period  in 
question.  The commander also pointed out that the close-out of 
the  Article  15  and  the  contested  report  occurred  on  the  same 
date; that all previous and subsequent EPRs were rated an overall 
5;  and,  the  commander  offering  the  Article  15,  two  months 
previous  not  only  approved  applicant's  selection  as  Senior 
Noncommissioned  Officer  (SNCO) of  the  quarter  and  SNCO  of  the 
year, but was the board president.  In view of this statement and 
in  recognition  of  applicant's  previous  and  subsequent  superior 
performance,  we  believe  that  sufficient doubt  exists  as  to  the 
accuracy of the report.  In addition, some question exists about 
whether  the  comments pertaining  to  the Article  15  were  removed 
from the contested report by the ERAB as stated in their 2 Jun 89 
decision. 
Therefore,  to  eliminate  any  doubt  and  possible 
injustice to the applicant, the Board recommends that the EPR in 
question be declared void and removed from his records. 

4.  In view  of the  removal of  the EPRs, 
applicant's  corrected  record be  provided 

we  also  recommend that 
supplemental promotion 

5 

consideration  to  the  grade  of  senior  master  sergeant  for  all 
appropriate cycles beginning with cycle 97E8. 

AFBCMR 98-0206 1 

THE  BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: 
The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force 
relating to APPLICANT, be corrected to show that the EPR,  AF Form 
911,  rendered  for  the  period  27 Apr  95  through  13 Nov  95  be 
declared void and removed from his records. 

It  is  further  recommended  that  he  be  provided  supplemental 
consideration  for  promotion  to  the  grade  of  senior  master 
sergeant for all appropriate cycles commencing with cycle 97E8. 

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 effective and with a date of rank as 
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  15 December  1998, under  the  provisions  of 
AFI 36-2603: 

Ms. Martha Maust, Panel Chair 
Ms.  Patricia D. Vestal, Member 
Mr. Frederick A. Beaman, 111, Member 
Mrs. Joyce Earley, Examiner  (without vote) 

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

6 

AFBCMR 98-0206 1 

E x h i b i t   A.  DD Form 1 4 9 ,   d a t e d   20 Jul 98,  w / a t c h s .  
E x h i b i t   B.  L e t t e r ,   AFPC/DPPPWB, dated  7  Aug  9 8 .  
E x h i b i t   C.  L e t t e r ,   AFPC/DPPPAB, d a t e d   31  Aug 9 8 .  
E x h i b i t   D. 
E x h i b i t   E .   L e t t e r   fr a p p l ,   dated  30 S e p   98,  w / a t c h s .  

L e t t e r ,   AFBCMR, d a t e d   1 4   S e p   9 8 .  

MARTHA MAUST ' 
P a n e l   C h a i r  

7 

t 

DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE 

WASHINGTON, DC 

mice of the Assistant Secretary 
AFBCMR 98-02061 

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: 

rds of the Department of the Air  Force relating t- 
corrected to show that the Enlisted Performance Report, AF 
Form 911, rendeied f&  the peGod  27 April  1995 through  13 November  1995 be, and hereby is, 
declared void and removed from his records. 

It is M e r  directed that he be provided supplemental consideration for promotion to the 

grade of senior master sergeant for all appropriate cycles commencing with cycle 97E8. 

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  effective  and  with  a  date  of  rank  as  established  by  the 
supplemental promotion and that he is entitled to all pay, allowances, and benefits of such grade 
as of that date. 

I  Air Force Review Boards Agency