RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2002-04036
                       INDEX CODE:  111.02

      APPLICANT  COUNSEL:  None

      SSN        HEARING DESIRED:  None

_________________________________________________________________


APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

The Enlisted  Performance  Report (EPR)  rendered  for  the  period  1
September 2001 through 16 April 2002 be removed from his records.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He was given verbal and  written  permission  to  purchase  individual
equipment for unit members by the prior noncommissioned officer  (NCO)
Academy  Commandant.   The  new  NCO  Academy  Commandant  found   the
purchases to be a crime.  Due  to  the  actions  by  the  NCO  Academy
Commandant over the situation he received an unjust EPR.

Applicant's complete submission,  with  attachments,  is  attached  at
Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant is currently serving in the Regular  Air  Force  in  the
grade of master sergeant.

The applicant appealed the contested report under  the  provisions  of
AFI 36-2401, Correcting Officer and Enlisted Evaluations Reports.  The
Evaluation Reports Appeal  Board  (ERAB)  was  not  convinced  by  the
documentation submitted by the applicant and denied his request.

The applicant received a Letter of Reprimand (LOR) on  16  April  2002
for wrongfully using the government IMPAC card to  purchase  a  Gortex
jacket and steel toe boots for his personal use.

EPR profile as a master sergeant reflects the following:

                 PERIOD ENDING               OVERALL EVALUATION

                   30 Dec 97                       5
                   29 Nov 98                       5
                   29 Nov 99                       5
                   29 Nov 00                       5
                   31 Aug 01                       5
                  *16 Apr 02                       4

* Contested report.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR STAFF EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPPE states the applicant submitted an appeal to  the  ERAB  and
the ERAB denied his request  stating  the  applicant  did  not  submit
evidence to substantiate his request to have the report  removed  from
his records.

The applicant has submitted with his request letters  stating  he  was
named as the representative to make purchases for the unit  using  the
IMPAC card.  There is nothing in the letters to indicate the applicant
was authorized to make personal purchases using the IMPAC card.  DPPPE
further states it is unreasonable to believe  that  the  applicant  (a
MSgt in the USAF)  was  somehow  confused  on  whether  he  could  use
“government money” to purchase personal items.  The applicant provided
no evidence to support he was authorized to make the purchases.

The applicant  further  contends  that  he  received  “blowback”  from
challenging his rater’s policy  for  denying  him  access  to  medical
treatment for a back injury.  As stated in the  ERAB’s  response,  the
applicant did not provide any evidence of how this affected  his  EPR.
He also alleged his rating chain was utilizing a  “quota  system”  for
distributing “5s” and forwarding for  senior  rater  endorsement.   No
evidence was submitted to support this contention.

In  accordance  with  AFI  36-2406,  paragraph  1.3,  “evaluators  are
strongly encouraged to comment in performance  reports  on  misconduct
that reflects a disregard of the law, whether civil law or the Uniform
Code of Military Justice (UCMJ),  or  when  adverse  actions  such  as
Article 15, Letters of  Reprimand,  Admonishment,  or  Counseling,  or
placement on the Control Roster have been taken.”  In the  applicant’s
case, an LOR and Unfavorable Information File (UIF) were given  during
the
reporting  period.   Paragraph  3.2.1.5  further  states,  “the  rater
considers the  significance  and  frequency  of  incidents  (including
isolated instances of poor or outstanding performance) when  assessing
total performance.”  It is clear that the rating chain considered  the
applicant’s misconduct in regard to his unlawful  IMPAC  purchase  and
chose to document it on the evaluation.

DPPPE further states that Air  Force  policy  is  that  an  evaluation
report is accurate as written when it becomes a matter of record.  The
applicant failed to substantiate his  allegations  and  they  find  no
errors or injustices cited in the EPR.  They recommend the applicant’s
request to have the EPR voided be denied.

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

AFPC/DPPPWB states the applicant's EPR is currently  being  considered
in the promotion process for the cycle 03E8 to Senior Master Sergeant.
 They further state that if the Board voids the EPR in  its  entirety,
or upgrades the overall rating, providing the applicant  is  otherwise
eligible,  the   applicant   would   be   entitled   to   supplemental
consideration beginning with the 03E8 cycle (Exhibit D).

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR STAFF EVALUATION:

Upon review of the Air Force evaluations, the applicant states the EPR
appeal board stated the gortex jacket and boots were for personal use.
 He asks that the Board not interpret it as it reads.  He states  yes,
the boots and jacket were purchased for his personal use to wear  with
the USAF military uniform.  In his eighteen years in the Air Force the
unit resources advisors have always purchased Boots and Field  Jackets
for the troops because he was told that these items were  not  covered
by the standard clothing allowance.  Resource advisors around the  Air
Force conduct these purchases daily.  He further  states  that  Supply
has a special department on base to handle  this  function--Individual
Equipment Issue Unit (it is called Gearin-Up on McGuire AFB because it
was converted to a civilian contract element).  Again,  he  states  he
purchased the items for personal use--for  the  military  uniform  use
only.  His goal was to purchase this type of  personal  equipment  for
the entire 14 person unit during the year  as  needed.   He  did  this
because he was given VERBAL and WRITTEN permission  to  purchase  this
type of equipment  with  the  unit  commander’s  signature.   The  new
commander thinks this to be a crime?????  This when compiled with  his
questioning the decision of the reporting official that  he  would  be
imposing a “QUOTA
SYSTEM” for  senior  rater  EPR’s  has  left  him  in  an  undesirable
predicament (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.    Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate
the existence of  error or injustice.  After a thorough review of  the
evidence of record and applicant’s submission, we are unpersuaded that
relief should be granted.  Applicant’s numerous contentions  are  duly
noted; however, we do not find these assertions, in and by themselves,
sufficiently persuasive to override  the  rationale  provided  by  the
offices of the Air Force.  The applicant did  not  provide  persuasive
evidence to establish that the contested report was  not  an  accurate
reflection of his performance.  Each evaluator has the obligation when
writing  the  performance  report  to  consider   any   incidents   of
substandard duty performance and the significance of  the  substandard
performance in assessing the service member's overall performance  and
potential.  In this respect, it would appear  the  LOR  the  applicant
received was the basis for the referral report.  The applicant has not
submitted evidence to show the LOR  was  issued  inappropriately.   We
therefore adopt the Air Force's rationale expressed as the  basis  for
our decision that the applicant has failed to sustain his burden  that
he has suffered either an error or an injustice.  Hence,  we  find  no
compelling basis to recommend granting the relief sought.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:

The  applicant  be  notified  that  the  evidence  presented  did  not
demonstrate the existence of 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 AFBCMR Docket Number BC-
2002-04036 in Executive Session on 13 May 2003, under  the  provisions
of AFI 36-2603:

                       Mr. Michael K. Gallogly, Panel Chair
                       Mr. John B. Hennessey, Member
                       Mr. E. David Hoard, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

      Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 10 Dec 02, w/atchs.
      Exhibit B. Applicant's Enlisted Performance Reports.
      Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPPPE, dated 20 Jan 03.
      Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/DPPPWB, dated 4 Feb 03.
      Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 28 Feb 03.
      Exhibit F. Applicant's E-mail Response, dated 31 Mar 03.




                       MICHAEL K. GALLOGLY
                       Panel Chair