RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  02-02727
		INDEX CODE:  111.05
		COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) rendered for the period 29 Jun 01 through 10 Feb 02, be removed from his records.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The EPR is extremely prejudicial to his military career and future promotion considerations.  The rater and endorser of the EPR are the same individuals that were responsible for the investigation and subsequent conviction in the Article 15 proceedings that were mentioned in the EPR.  The EPR ratings are dramatically lower than what he believes to be fair given that the EPR is supposed to be a reflection of his duty performance for the entire period, not the alleged events of one day.

In support of his request, applicant provided a copy of his 10 Feb 02 EPR, with attachments; and documentation pertaining to his misuse of government computer investigation.  His complete submission, with attachments is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant contracted his initial enlistment in the Regular Air Force on 18 Oct 85.  He has been progressively promoted to the grade of technical sergeant, having assumed that grade effective and with a date of rank of 1 Nov 00.

The following is a resume of his recent EPR ratings:

	PERIOD ENDING		PROMOTION RECOMMENDATION

	10 Feb 02*		2
	28 Jun 01		5
	28 Jun 00		5
	22 Jul 99		5
	02 Nov 98		5

* - Contested Report

On 30 Jan 02, the applicant was notified by his commander of his intent to impose nonjudicial punishment under Article 15 of the Uniformed Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) for wrongfully using a government computer to store, process, display, send, or otherwise transmit offensive or obscene material.  He was advised of his rights in this matter and acknowledged receipt of the notification on 6 Feb 02.  After consulting counsel, the applicant waived his right to demand trial by court-martial, accepted Article 15 proceedings, and provided a written and oral presentation to his commander.  On 11 Feb 02, after consideration of all the facts, his wing commander determined that he committed the offense alleged and imposed punishment on the applicant.  He received a suspended reduction to the grade of staff sergeant, ordered to forfeit $200 pay per month for 2 months, ordered to perform 30 days extra duty, and reprimanded.  The applicant appealed his punishment to the ACC CG/CC.  His appeal was denied.  

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPPEP reviewed applicant's request and recommends denial.  DPPPEP states that although the applicant may feel the evaluators over stressed the incident, the evaluators were obliged to consider the incident, its significance, and the frequency with which it occurred when assessing performance and potential.  The allegations made on the Article 15, and the Article 15 itself, were clearly considered when assessing the applicant's performance and potential.  It is strongly encouraged in AFI 36-2406 to consider and comment on these types of incidents on performance reports.  The EPR should be voided only if the Article 15 were to be set aside. 

The DPPPEP evaluation is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 11 Oct 02 for review and comment within 30 days.  As of this date, this office has received no response.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

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

2.  The application was timely filed.

2.  The application was not timely filed; however, it is in the interest of justice to excuse the failure to timely file.

3.  Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of error or injustice.  Applicant contends that undue emphasis on an isolated incident tainted his supervisors' perception of his performance, which resulted in an unfairly written performance report.  His contentions are duly noted; however, we do not find his assertions, in and by themselves, sufficiently persuasive to override the evidence of record and the rationale provided by the Air Force.  Evidence has not been presented which would lead us to believe the contested report is not a true and accurate assessment of his overall performance and demonstrated potential for promotion during the specified time period.  Accordingly, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of the Air Force office of primary responsibility and adopt their rationale as the basis for our conclusion that he has neo been the victim of an error or injustice.  In the absence of persuasive evidence to the contrary, we find no compelling basis to recommend granting the relief sought in this application. 

_________________________________________________________________

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 Docket Number 02-02727 in Executive Session on 29 Jan 03, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 15 Aug 02, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPEP, dated 4 Oct 02.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 11 Oct 02.