RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  99-00657
                             INDEX CODE:  111.02
                             COUNSEL:  NONE

                             HEARING DESIRED:  NO


_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

The Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) rendered for the  period    16  May
1995 through 6 October  1995  be  declared  void  and  removed  from  his
records.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The contested report does not accurately portray his duty performance.

In support of the appeal, applicant submits a statement from  the  rater,
who states that:

      “Subsequent to an alcohol-related event that took place in 1995,  I
believe the SMSgt Ray’s judgment had suffered.  I rendered him a referral
EPR.  Other than the events surrounding this medically related  incident,
his period of service under my supervision was excellent.  After this EPR
I had hoped he would voluntarily seek medical attention for his  problem.
He did in fact take immediate steps to confer  with  medical  authorities
and resolved his problem.  Based on conversations I have since  had  with
his current supervisors, it appears to me that his performance  continues
to be exceptional, as it was before the unfortunate incident of 1995.

      While this EPR was an appropriate representation of  the  situation
at that time, alcoholism is  a  disease  and  the  SMSgt  Ray  should  be
considered cured.  Certainly his entire distinguished  career  should  be
considered and this should not permanently block further promotion.”

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 senior master sergeant.

EPR profile since 1991 reflects the following:

      PERIOD ENDING    EVALUATION OF POTENTIAL

        15 May 91                 5
        15 May 92                 5
        15 May 93                 5
        15 May 94                 5
        15 May 95                 5
       * 6 Oct 95                 3
         6 Oct 96                 5
         6 Oct 97                 5
         6 Oct 98                 5

*  Contested report.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The Chief, Promotion, Evaluation  and  Recognition  Division,  AFPC/DPPP,
reviewed  this  application  and  states  that  evaluation  reports   are
considered  accurate  as  written  unless  substantial  evidence  to  the
contrary is provided.  In this case, the rater does not state the  report
was unfair or an inaccurate assessment  of  the  applicant’s  performance
prior to the report being made a matter of record.  They state  that  the
appeals process does not exist to recreate history or enhance chances for
promotion.  However, it seems this  is  exactly  what  the  applicant  is
doing,  recreating  history.   Therefore,  they  are  not  convinced  the
contested report is not accurate as written.  The applicant was  involved
in an alcohol related incident, a  point  not  in  contention,  and  this
impropriety was appropriately reflected in his EPR.  They state that they
understand the applicant’s desire for the board to direct voidance of the
contested EPR because of the promotion advantage.  However, to remove the
EPR from his record would be unfair to  all  the  other  non-commissioned
officers  who  were  not  involved  in  alcohol  related  incidents,  and
effectively performed their duties.  They further state, removal  of  the
contested  report  would  make   the   applicant’s   record   inaccurate.
Therefore,  based  on  evidence  provided,  they  recommend   denial   of
applicant’s request.

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

The Chief, Inquiries/AFBCMR  Section,  AFPC/DPPPWB,  also  reviewed  this
application and states that because the applicant’s contested report  was
a referral with an overall rating of 3 he was  ineligible  for  promotion
for cycle 96E9 to chief master sergeant.  They state,  should  the  Board
grant his request, providing the applicant  is  otherwise  eligible,  the
applicant  will  be  entitled  to  supplemental  promotion  consideration
commencing with cycle 96E9.

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

______________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant reviewed the advisory opinions and states that on  10  June
1995, at about 2330 hours, after attending a cookout with classmates from
the Senior NCO Academy (SNCOA), he  went  from  the  SNCOA  dorm  to  the
billeting office to visit a friend.  The friend he went to visit had  not
arrived from work, so he went back to his car and  turned  the  radio  on
with the intention of waiting for the  individual  to  arrive.   He  fell
asleep and was awakened by a Security Policeman (SP).  He asked if he had
been drinking and he  answered  yes,  earlier  at  the  SNCOA  dorm  with
classmates.  The SP asked if he would  consent  to  an  Intoxilyzer  test
because he had  been  apprehended  under  suspicion  of  being  drunk  on
station.  He states that at the time he left the dorm to go to billeting,
he did not feel or think he was intoxicated.  From what  he  had  learned
through the Social  Actions  and  Mental  Health  programs  that  he  had
attended, it takes time for alcohol to enter  the  bloodstream.   He  was
administered the Intoxilyzer almost  three  hours  after  he  arrived  at
billeting.  He states that due to an error in judgment on  his  part,  he
acknowledge he was wrong to drive his car to billeting and accepted  full
responsibility for this incident at the time.  He now asks that  the  EPR
in question be removed from his records for the following  reasons:   (1)
He has exemplified integrity, honesty and  total  cooperation  throughout
this whole process with all  parties  concerned,  never  trying  to  make
excuses or trying to talk his way out of the situation.  In fact, he  has
taken full responsibility for his actions.  (2) He believes  the  rater’s
purpose for writing this EPR was more to get his attention than to  be  a
permanent block to further promotion.  He states the rater felt this  was
a medical related incident and hoped that writing the EPR would cause him
to voluntarily seek medical attention.  He did volunteer and completed  a
five week in-residence substance abuse program at  Malcolm  Grow  Medical
Center.  Upon completion, he was temporarily assigned to the 11th MSS and
then permanently reassigned to the Air Force  Executive  Dining  Facility
with glowing endorsements from his supervisors.  (3) Since this  incident
occurred,  he  was  competitively  reselected  to   attend   the   Senior
Noncommissioned Officer Academy (SNCO) at Maxwell AFB, AL, where he was a
flight commander and graduated in October 1997.   He  asks,  if  the  Air
Force had the faith in him to send him back to the SNCOA, shouldn’t it be
evident that this single EPR shouldn’t be the deciding factor that blocks
his career progression?

He concludes by saying that he exercised extreme  professionalism  during
this embarrassing time in his career and accepted the  severe  punishment
given to him.  He states the whole experience has been a wake-up call and
has made him a better SNCO serving today’s Air Force.  With 3 ½ years  of
supervision, his immediate supervisor and commander have full  trust  and
confidence in his abilities,  character  and  leadership,  entrusting  17
young airmen under his care.

In addition, applicant submits two character references.

Applicant's  complete  response,  with  attachments,   is   attached   at
Exhibit F.

______________________________________________________________

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

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

2.    The application was timely filed.

3.    Sufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate  the
existence of probable error or injustice.  After reviewing the supporting
documentation submitted by the applicant, we believe that  the  contested
report is not an accurate assessment of his performance during the period
in question.  In this respect, based on the statement  submitted  by  the
rater, it appears that this was a one-time isolated incident.   Prior  to
rendering a recommendation on this appeal, the Board requested additional
information from applicant in regards to this being an isolated  incident
and his attendance at a substance abuse program.  Applicant provided  the
additional documentation and  we  are  persuaded  that  the  incident  in
question was an isolated instance of poor judgment on  the  part  of  the
applicant that will not reoccur.  Had the applicant had  prior  incidents
of alcohol related problems, we would not hesitate to deny  his  request.
However, with the exception of the one incident, we find no  evidence  of
prior  problems  with  alcohol.   In  view  of  the  foregoing,  and   in
recognition of the applicant’s effort to  rehabilitate  himself  and  put
this incident behind him, we believe the contested EPR should be declared
void and removed from his records as a matter of justice.   In  addition,
we recommend he be provided supplemental promotion consideration for  all
appropriate cycles beginning with cycle 96E9.

______________________________________________________________

THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT:

The pertinent military  records  of  the  Department  of  the  Air  Force
relating to APPLICANT, be corrected to  show  that  the  Senior  Enlisted
Performance Report, AF Form 911, rendered for  the  period  16  May  1995
through 6 October 1995, be declared void and removed from his records.

It  is  further  recommended  that  applicant  be  provided  supplemental
consideration for promotion to the grade of chief master sergeant for all
appropriate cycles beginning with cycle 96E9.

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 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 17 June 1999, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

            Mr. Terry A. Yonkers, Panel Chair
            Mrs. Margaret A. Zook, Member
            Ms. Leta L. O’Connor, 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 22 Feb 99.
      Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
      Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPPP, dated 12 Mar 99.
      Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/DPPPWB, dated 15 Mar 99.
      Exhibit E. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 17 Mar 99.
      Exhibit F. Applicant’s Response, dated 10 Apr 99.




                             TERRY A. YONKERS
                             Panel Chair




AFBCMR 99-00657




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:

      The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air
Force relating to xxxxxxx, be corrected to show that the Senior
Enlisted Performance Report, AF Form 911, rendered for the period 16
May 1995 through 6 October 1995, be, and hereby is, declared void and
removed from his records.

      It is further directed that applicant be provided supplemental
consideration for promotion to the grade of chief master sergeant for
all appropriate cycles beginning with cycle 96E9.

      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 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.





                             JOE G. LINEBERGER
                             Director
                             Air Force Review Boards Agency