RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:                 DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2003-03771
                                  INDEX CODE:  111.02
  XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX              COUNSEL:  NONE

  XXXXXXXXXXXX                    HEARING DESIRED:  NO
_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) rendered for  the  period  of  3  June
1999 through 30 January 2000 be removed from  his  records  and  he  receive
supplemental promotion consideration.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

His performance report closing 30 January 2000 should be  removed  from  his
records  due  to  conflicts   and   irregularities   concerning   his   duty
performance.

In support of his request, the applicant submits  a  personal  statement;  a
copy of his EPR closing 30 January 2000; a copy of his  gaining  commander’s
Memo for Record to set aside  the  Article  15  punishment;  copies  of  his
performance feedback worksheets dated 30 August 1999 and 3 January  2000;  a
copy of his Air Force Achievement Medal certificate;  character  references;
a copy of his Unfavorable Information File (UIF) removal letter; a  copy  of
his credit union statement for July  1999;  the  Evaluation  Reports  Appeal
Board (ERAB) denial letters dated 4 April  2003  and  17 September  2003;  a
copy of an e-mail  from  the  NCOIC  of  Military  Justice  concerning  this
removal of his Article 15 with attachment; a copy  of  his  Application  for
Command Sponsorship; copies of correspondence  from  his  government  credit
card company; and a copy of his Article 15  dated  22  February  2000.   The
applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The Military Personnel Database  (MilPDS)  indicates  the  applicant  has  a
Total Active Federal  Military  Service  Date  of  11  June  1993.   He  has
continually served on active duty and has  been  progressively  promoted  to
the grade of staff sergeant (E-5), with a date of rank of 1 May 1999.

On 22 February 2000,  the  applicant  received  Article  15  punishment  for
misuse  of  a  government  credit  card.   His  punishment  consisted  of  a
reduction to the grade of senior airman.  The applicant received a  referral
EPR for the period 3 June 1999 through 30 January 2000.  On  18  July  2001,
the applicant’s gaining  commander  found  the  Article  15  punishment  was
disproportionate to the gravity of the charged offense and initiated  action
to set aside the nonjudicial punishment having made the  determination  that
unusual circumstances existed.  On 4 April 2003 and 17 September  2003,  the
Evaluation  Reports  Appeal  Board  (ERAB)   considered   and   denied   the
applicant’s requests to have his referral  EPR  removed  from  his  records.
Copies of the ERAB’s decision are included with Exhibit A.

The following is a resume of the applicant’s EPR profile:

      PERIOD ENDING          PROMOTION RECOMMENDATION

    01 Aug 96                     5
    10 Feb 96                     5
    02 Jan 97                     4
    02 Jun 98                     5
    02 Jun 99                     5
    30 Jan 00*                    3
    21 Oct 00                     5
    21 Oct 01                     5
    21 Oct 02                     5
    21 Oct 03                     5

* Contested report

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPPEP strongly recommends denial of the applicant’s  request  to  void
his EPR closing on 30  January  2000.   It  is  DPPPEP’s  opinion  that  the
applicant did not provide  any  evidence  or  documentation  supporting  his
contention  that  the  EPR  in  question  was  not  fair  or  and   accurate
assessment.  The applicant indicates that since his  Article  15  punishment
was set aside, he was not in violation of the policies governing the use  of
his  government  travel  card.   DPPPEP  states  that  setting   aside   his
punishment does not negate the accuracy of his evaluation.  The ERAB  denied
both of the applicant’s appeals stating that even though a  portion  of  his
Article 15 punishment was set aside, the  Article  15  itself  was  not  set
aside.  In addition, he failed to  provide  documentation  to  convince  the
ERAB that the misuse of his government  credit  card  did  not  occur.   The
comments in his contested EPR are based on  the  misuse  of  his  government
travel card along with other comments regarding his duty  performance.   The
report does not even mention the Article 15.  The applicant claims that  the
other referral comments in his EPR were never identified to him  during  his
performance feedback sessions.  While  current  Air  Force  policy  requires
performance  feedback  for   personnel,   a   direct   correlation   between
information  provided  during  feedback  sessions  and  the  assessments  on
evaluation reports does not  necessarily  exist.   If  the  member’s  rating
chain  determined  an  inaccuracy  had  occurred  in  the  evaluation  after
mitigating the punishment, support would have been provided  to  void/change
the EPR, which has not occurred.  The AFPC/DPPPEP evaluation is  at  Exhibit
C.

AFPC/DPPPWB defers to DPPPEP’s  recommendation.   DPPPWB  states  the  first
time the applicant’s contested report was used in the promotion process  was
cycle 01E6 to technical sergeant (TSgt).  The applicant’s  total  score  was
249.73 and the score required for selection in his Air Force Specialty  Code
(AFSC) was 310.02.  He was also considered and nonselected for promotion  to
TSgt during cycles 02E6 and 03E6.  Should the Board  decide  to  remove  the
contested report, the applicant would  be  entitled  to  supplemental  board
consideration  beginning  with  cycle  01E6.   His  total  score  would  not
increase sufficiently enough to make him a select for cycles 01E6  or  02E6.
However, he would become a select for cycle  03E6,  pending  favorable  data
verification and the  recommendation  of  his  commander.   The  AFPC/DPPPWB
evaluation is at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

According to AFI 51-202, paragraph 5.7.2, “Setting  aside  a  punishment  in
its entirety restores the member to the position held before  imposition  of
the punishment, as if the Article 15 action had never been initiated.”   The
direct correlation between the  performance  feedback  worksheet  (PFW)  and
enlisted performance report (EPR) is established by  Air  Force  Instruction
36-2406,  Enlisted  Evaluation  System,  paragraph  2.1,  which  states  the
purpose of the PFW is “a private, formal communication a rater uses to  tell
a ratee what is expected regarding the duty performance  and  how  well  the
ratee is meeting those expectations.”  The seven areas of the  PFW  are  the
same expectations listed on the EPR.  This  process  was  created  and  made
mandatory so members would understand the evaluation standard being used  by
their supervisor as a precursor to the EPR.

The subsequent evidence provided by  Bank  of  America  shows  the  merchant
failed to provide evidence showing he made  a  purchase  at  Ikea.   He  has
accepted responsibility  for  the  mitigating  circumstances  of  using  his
government credit card to  purchase  ferry  tickets  to  move  his  command-
sponsored spouse.  However, he does not believe the Article  15  would  have
been administered for these charges  alone,  but  stems  from  the  unproven
allegations of misuse.  Therefore, he  requests  that  his  EPR  closing  30
January 2000 be removed from his  record.   The  applicant  rebuttal  is  at
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 an injustice.  After a  thorough  review  of  the  evidence  of
record, we are persuaded that  the  contested  report  is  not  a  fair  and
accurate reflection of the applicant’s  performance  during  the  period  in
question.  We note the gaining commander’s  contentions  of  correcting,  in
his opinion, a clear injustice when he chose to  set-aside  the  applicant’s
Article 15  punishment.   Contrary  to  the  Air  Force  Office  of  Primary
Responsibility’s  advisory,  the  AFPC  Legal   Office   agrees   with   the
applicant’s assertion by  citing  AFI  51-202,  paragraph  5.7.2;  when  the
commander set-aside the applicant’s Article 15 punishment in it’s  entirety,
he also essentially set aside the Article 15 itself as if it had never  been
initiated.  Based on this evidence, the Board feels that the  same  leniency
shown  the  applicant  for  correcting  the  circumstances  surrounding  his
Article 15 set-aside should also be applied to the  applicant’s  performance
rating for the evaluation period in question.  It  is  the  Board’s  opinion
that  the  rating  the  applicant  received  in   the   contested   EPR   is
disproportionate to the circumstances of the charged offense  in  comparison
to his normal exceptional performance and accomplishments.  In view  of  the
foregoing, and in an effort to offset any possibility of  an  injustice,  we
believe  the  records  should  be  corrected  in  favor  of  the  applicant.
Therefore, we recommend the EPR  be  declared  void  and  removed  from  his
records.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:

The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air  Force  relating
to APPLICANT be corrected to show that the Enlisted Performance  Report,  AF
Form 910, rendered for the period 3 June 1999 through 30  January  2000  be,
and hereby is, declared void and removed from his records.

It is further directed that he be provided  supplemental  consideration  for
promotion to the grade of  technical  sergeant  (E-6)  for  all  appropriate
cycles beginning with cycle 01E6.

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  individual
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  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 11 March 2004, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

      Mr. Michael K. Gallogly, Panel Chair
      Mr. Joseph D. Yount, Member
      Ms. Renee M. Collier, Member

All members voted to correct the records,  as  recommended.   The  following
documentary evidence for AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2003-03771 was considered:

      Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 5 Nov 03, with attachments.
      Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
      Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/ DPPPEP, dated 7 Jan 04.
      Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/ DPPPWB, dated 9 Jan 04.
      Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 6 Ferb 04.
      Exhibit F.  Applicant’s Rebuttal, dated 27 Feb 04.




                                                   MICHAEL K. GALLOGLY
                                                   Panel Chair


AFBCMR BC-2003-03771




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 XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX, be corrected to show that the
Enlisted Performance Report, AF Form 910, rendered for the period 3 June
1999 through 30 January 2000 be, and hereby is, declared void and removed
from his records.

      It is further directed that he be provided supplemental consideration
for promotion to the grade of technical sergeant (E-6) for all appropriate
cycles beginning with cycle 01E6.

      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
individual 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 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