RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  99-00735
            INDEX CODES:  111.02, 131.00

            COUNSEL:  ALISON L. RUTTENBERG

            HEARING DESIRED:  YES


APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

The Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) rendered for the  period  21 Aug
94 through 25 Jul 95 be declared void and removed from his records.

His records be corrected to reflect that he was promoted to the  grade
of master sergeant effective and with date of rank (DOR) of 1 Aug  95,
rather than 1 Aug 97, with back pay and allowances.

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The contested  report  was  based  on  a  factually  and  procedurally
irregular letter of reprimand (LOR).  The report should  have  been  a
referral EPR, thus allowing him an opportunity to formally  rebut  the
contents of the report.

He was removed from the promotion list based on identical  allegations
in the LOR and the derogatory EPR.

In support of his appeal, the applicant provided a counsel’s brief,  a
copy of his appeal under the provisions of AFI 36-2401, which included
copies of the contested  EPR,  LOR,  nonrecommendation  for  promotion
letter, and numerous other documents associated with the matter  under
review.

Applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Information extracted from the Personnel Data System  (PDS)  indicates
that the applicant retired for length of service, effective 1 Aug  99,
in the grade of master sergeant.  He was credited  with  20  years,  4
months, and 12 days of active duty service.

Applicant's Airman Performance  Report/Enlisted  Performance  Report
(APR/EPR) profile since 1988 follows:

     PERIOD ENDING                            EVALUATION

      30 Aug 88  9
      15 Mar 89  9
      16 Mar 90  4 (EPR)
      16 Mar 91  5
      16 Mar 92  5
      16 Mar 93  5
      16 Mar 94  5
      20 Aug 94  5
  *  25 Jul 95   2
      25 Jul 96  5
      31 Mar 97  5
      31 Mar 98  5

* Contested report.

On 26 Jul 95, the  applicant  was  given  an  LOR  for  the  following
reasons:

      a.  On 11 Jul 95,  a  production  evaluation  was  conducted  to
review his recruiting activities for failure  to  make  goal  for  two
consecutive quarters.  During  the  production  evaluation  it  became
evident that between 2 Jan 95 and 31 May 95, he reported false numbers
of 342 USAFRSQ Forms 6 (planning guide) regarding  phone  prospecting.
This was found during a  routine  validation  of  long-distance  phone
calls.  Reported long-distance telephone calls were not validated when
checked against the long-distance telephone bills.

      b.  On 6 Jun 95, he was given a specific order by the Operations
Officer to  disconnect  a  specific  telephone  (designated  for  data
transmission) and to not use that line  for  telephone  calls.   Phone
records indicated that on 9 Jun 95, he made a phone  call  to  another
recruiter’s home phone.  The phone was also still in place during  the
11 Jun 95 production evaluation.

On 26 Jul 95, the applicant received notification from  his  commander
that he was not being recommended for promotion to the grade of master
sergeant for cycle 95E7.  The specific reasons were:

      a.  His duty performance had been less than acceptable,  causing
a production evaluation to be required  on  11  Jul  95,  which  found
serious breaches of integrity and inaccurate reporting of activity.

      b.  His attitude and failure to  follow  direct  orders  from  a
superior officer and immediate direction from supervisors additionally
showed a lacking of character, respect, and understanding of  military
protocol  and  procedures  critical  for  mission  accomplishment  and
expected of all, especially senior noncommissioned officers (NCOs).



AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The Enlisted  Promotion  and  Military  Testing  Branch,  AFPC/DPPPWB,
reviewed this application and indicated that should the EPR be removed
or the DOR changed to 1 Aug 95, the applicant  would  be  entitled  to
supplemental promotion consideration to the  grade  of  senior  master
sergeant beginning with cycle 98E8, provided he is recommended and  is
otherwise  qualified.   DPPPWB  noted  that  the  applicant  became  a
selectee to master sergeant during the 97E7 cycle with a date of  rank
and effective date of 1 Aug 97.

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

The Staff Judge  Advocate,  AFPC/JA,  reviewed  this  application  and
recommended denial.  A complete copy of the evaluation is  at  Exhibit
D.

The  BCMR  Appeals  and  SSB  Section,  AFPC/DPPPAB,   reviewed   this
application and recommended denial.  A complete copy of the evaluation
is at Exhibit E.

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to applicant  on  3
Sep 99 for review and response.  As of this date, no response has been
received by this office (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.

3.  Sufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the
existence of probable error or injustice.  After a thorough review  of
the available evidence, we have serious  reservations  concerning  the
LOR received by the applicant, which appears to have  been  the  basis
for the contested report and his  nonrecommendation for promotion.

      a.  The evidence of record reveals that the applicant was  given
an LOR for falsifying his recruiting telephone log and  disobeying  an
order to disconnect and not to use a  specific  telephone  (designated
for data transmission) and to not use that line for  telephone  calls.
Upon closer scrutiny of  this  case,  we  are  not  convinced  of  the
applicant’s  culpability  regarding  his  alleged  falsifying  of  the
telephone log.  In this respect, we note that his commander  initially
pursued nonjudicial punishment under Article 15 against him for making
false official statements in the  phone  log.   When  the  applicant’s
military counsel requested a copy of the evidence that was  the  basis
for the Article 15 from the legal office, she was told that the office
did not have it.  Ultimately, the Article 15 action  was  dropped  and
the commander sought administrative action against the applicant.

      b.  It appears the basis for the allegation that  the  applicant
falsified official documents was the discrepancy between his phone log
and the telephone bill, in that certain long distance telephone  calls
were not itemized.  When  the  applicant  was  unable  to  immediately
provide  a  plausible  explanation,  his  integrity  was  called  into
question.   The  evidence  seems  to  suggest   that   the   applicant
experienced a number of problems with his phone system.  His  military
counsel indicated that the applicant attempted to research  the  phone
records and contacted the phone companies in order  to  clear  up  the
problem but this took time.  However, he  eventually  discovered  that
there were telephone calls that were not itemized on the bill  because
they were grouped together in a bulk billing.  According  to  counsel,
attempts have been made to receive itemized bills but to no avail.  In
her view, the applicant’s unit could  not  do  an  accurate  and  fair
analysis of the matters without getting the itemized phone bills.   We
tend to agree.

      c.  With regard to the allegation that the applicant  failed  to
obey an order to disconnect and not use  a  specific  phone  line,  it
would seem that the applicant failed to disconnect the  line  since  a
call was made from that line.  However, there is no evidence that  the
applicant used or intended for the line to be used.  A  statement  has
been provided by another recruiter indicating that he  made  the  call
without the applicant’s knowledge.  We believe that receiving  an  LOR
and being denied promotion for what may have been an  inadvertent  act
on the part of the applicant seems unduly harsh.

4.  In  view  of  the  foregoing  and  in  an  effort  to  offset  any
possibility of an injustice, we believe the contested report, the LOR,
and the nonrecommendation for promotion should be  declared  void  and
removed from his records and he  be  provided  supplemental  promotion
consideration.

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 Report, AF Form 910,  rendered  for
the period 21 Aug 94 through 25 Jul 95, be declared void  and  removed
from his records.

       b.  The  Letter  of  Reprimand,  dated  26  Jul  95   and   the
Notification of Nonrecommendation for Promotion Letter,  dated  26 Jul
95, and any and all documents and references  pertaining  thereto,  be
declared void and removed from his records.

      c.  He was promoted  to  the  grade  of  master  sergeant  (E-7)
effective and with date of rank of 1 Aug 95, rather than 1 Aug 97.

It  is  further  recommended  that   he   be   provided   supplemental
consideration for promotion to the grade of senior master sergeant for
all appropriate cycles beginning with cycle 98E8.

If selected for promotion to the grade of senior  master  sergeant  by
supplemental consideration, he be provided any additional supplemental
consideration required as a result of that selection.

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 qualifications 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 21 Mar 00, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

      Mr. Richard A. Peterson, Panel Chair
      Ms. Peggy E. Gordon, Member
      Mr. Philip Sheuerman, Member

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

     Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 10 Jul 98, w/atchs.
     Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
     Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPWB, dated 24 May 99.
     Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/JA, dated 9 Aug 99.
     Exhibit E.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPAB, dated 16 Aug 99.
     Exhibit F.  Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 3 Sep 99.




                                   RICHARD A. PETERSON
                                   Panel Chair

AFBCMR 99-00735




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 , be corrected to show that:

            a.  The Enlisted Performance Report, AF Form 910, rendered
for the period 21 Aug 94 through 25  Jul  95,  be  declared  void  and
removed from his records.

            b.  The Letter of Reprimand,  dated  26  Jul  95  and  the
Notification of Nonrecommendation for Promotion Letter,  dated  26 Jul
95, and any and all documents and references  pertaining  thereto,  be
declared void and removed from his records.

            c.  He was promoted to the grade of master sergeant  (E-7)
effective and with date of rank of 1 Aug 95, rather than 1 Aug 97.

      It is further  recommended  that  he  be  provided  supplemental
consideration for promotion to the grade of senior master sergeant for
all appropriate cycles beginning with cycle 98E8.

      If selected for promotion to the grade of senior master sergeant
by  supplemental  consideration,  he  be   provided   any   additional
supplemental consideration required as a result of that selection.

      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 qualifications 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.






    JOE G. LINEBERGER

    Director

    Air Force Review Boards Agency