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:

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.