RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  94-04272
            INDEX CODES:  131.09, 136.00

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  YES


_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

Her records be corrected to show that she was promoted to the grade of
master sergeant on 1 Nov 91, and that she retired in that grade  on  1
Mar 92.

She receive military and retired pay  due  her  as  a  result  of  her
advancement to the higher rank.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

She was not given due process.

None of her witnesses were contacted during the investigation.

She complained about a situation in her squadron, and  was  prosecuted
because of it.

Her case was not finalized until she was already out of the Air Force,
therefore being forced out.

Her case was done by people that knew XXXXXXX.  Therefore,  she  feels
the case was handled in a biased manner.

The contents of the letter  nonrecommending  her  for  promotion  were
written concerning more than one reporting period.  She was  rated  as
being ready for promotion.

The letter she received on her congressional inquiry was done  without
considering her side.

In support of her appeal, the applicant provided a personal statement,
a copy  of  a  letter  notifying  her  of  her  nonrecommendation  for
promotion, with an attached statement from
the applicant, and other documents associated with  the  matter  under
review.

Applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant contracted her initial enlistment  in  the  Regular  Air
Force on 8 Oct  71.   Prior  to  the  events  under  review,  she  was
progressively promoted  to  the  grade  of  technical  sergeant.   She
entered her  last  enlistment  on  17  Feb  87,  on  which  date,  she
reenlisted for a period of five years.  On 2  Jan  92,  the  applicant
extended her current enlistment for a period of 1 month.  As a result,
her date of separation (DOS) was extended from 16 Feb 92 to 16 Mar 92.

Applicant’s Airman/Enlisted Performance Report (APR/EPR) profile since
promotion to technical sergeant follows:

      PERIOD ENDING    EVALUATION

      28 Feb 86                                    9
      28 Feb 87                                    9
      28 Jun 87                                    9
      28 Jun 88                                    8
      27 Feb 89                                    8
      27 Feb 90                                    5 (EPR)
      27 Feb 91                                    5

On 22 Oct 91, the applicant’s  commander  notified  her  that  he  was
nonrecommending her for promotion to the  grade  of  master  sergeant.
The commander indicated that, after much soul searching and review  of
the applicant’s past performance and circumstances, he  had  concluded
in good conscience that the applicant was not professional enough  and
dedicated enough to assume the responsibilities  of  master  sergeant.
Despite being given the benefit of the doubt  on  her  last  two  EPRs
which were rated “5’s”, and given the benefit of the doubt on a recent
commendation medal, each action of which was designed to motivate  the
desired  behavior,  the   applicant   continued   in   her   ways   of
insubordination and disrespect.  Since her last February’s performance
report, the applicant’s attitude and  overall  performance  have  been
unsatisfactory.  Her negative  attitude  has  adversely  affected  the
squadron for too long.  Her insubordination,  disrespect  to  officers
and general defiant attitude have surpassed any reasonable standard of
acceptance.  Based  on  her  insubordination,  contempt  and  outright
disrespect toward squadron  officers,  and  her  very  disruptive  and
increasingly  apathetic  attitude,  he  was  compelled  to  make   the
nonrecommendation for promotion.  The commander indicated that he made
the  decision  without  any  reservation.    The   duration   of   the
nonrecommendation action was for the entire 92A7 promotion cycle.  The
commander stated  that  the  following  were  excerpts  from  existing
documentation of the applicant’s previous unsatisfactory performance.

About 27 Feb 89, after XXXXX threatened the applicant with  AFR  39-10
action and possible 1321 action (removal  for  cause),  the  applicant
immediately jumped the chain  of  command.   She  later  informed  the
commander.  According to  the  commander,  reasons  for  the  possible
disciplinary actions against the applicant included negative attitude,
inadequate work performance, and general unprofessional behavior.

About 5 Jun 90, XXXXXX- was subjected to insubordinate behavior by the
applicant.  During a conversation that became heated, XXXXXX asked for
a document which the applicant then crumpled up and threw in the trash
can.  When the captain tried to retrieve the document,  the  applicant
grabbed it and tore it up.

Comments by XXXXXXX indicated a lack of support from the applicant and
that she told XXXXXXX to falsify birth dates on COI attendees.

About 19 Jun 90, XXXXXXX indicated an instance of  disrespect  by  the
applicant.  When the major entered her office attempting  to  complete
required paperwork, the applicant refused to acknowledge  the  major’s
presence or efforts to communicate.

On 20 Jun 90, XXXXXX received a disrespectful and unprofessional phone
call in  her  office  from  the  applicant.   The  matter  dealt  with
paperwork and the applicant again showed an uncooperative and negative
attitude.  The commander indicated that he personally  overheard  part
of this conversation and concurred with XXXXXXXX testimony.

On 26 Jun 90, due to a negative trend in the applicant’s attitude, the
applicant no longer dealt  directly  with  XXXXX.  After  attempts  to
alleviate the situation, XXXXXXX asked for a meeting with XXXXXXX  and
the applicant.   After  finally  agreeing  to  a  short  meeting,  the
applicant again showed disdain and disrespect and then  left  claiming
she had another appointment.  XXXXXXX, XXXXXXX and XXXXXXX all  agreed
that the applicant had an attitude problem.

On 26 Jun 90, XXXXXXX further commented about the applicant’s negative
and insubordinate tones of conversation.

On 27 Jun 90, XXXXXXX approached the applicant to further discuss  the
previous day’s meeting and  again  the  applicant  showed  disrespect.
After informing the applicant that her unprofessional  behavior  would
be corrected as required, XXXXXX extended her hand in  an  attempt  to
create a more comfortable working relationship.  The applicant refused
the gesture responding with “so you can stab me in the back.”

XXXXXXX complained about poor treatment from the  applicant.   XXXXXXX
was very conscientious.  He stated that phone calls  he  received  had
been implications of recruiter fraud, misuse of government funds,  and
being treated like a child.

On 27 Aug 90, XXXXXXX noted that the applicant’s behavior continued to
be inappropriate and counterproductive to team  harmony  and  squadron
effectiveness.   The  applicant  continued  to  avoid  XXXXXXX.    The
applicant approached the new H.P. flight supervisor and discussed  the
ongoing disharmony with XXXXXXX, further planting seeds of discontent.

On 10 Jul 91, the applicant’s new  supervisor,  XXXXXXX,  had  already
noticed that the applicant’s attitude was one of doing just enough  to
get by.  Answers were short.  Prying information out of the  applicant
was hard.

On 10 Jul 91, in an attempt to  increase  their  efforts  in  minority
recruiting, their squadron paid booth rental at a local  minority  job
fair.   The  commander  asked  four  minority  recruiters   and   four
Caucasians to man the booth.  The applicant  took  the  attitude  that
this  was  discriminatory  and  threatened  to  report  this  to   the
newspaper.  After being offered “comp time” for working two four  hour
weekend shifts, the applicant requested two days “comp time”  for  one
four hour shift.  XXXXXX described her  attitude  during  this  entire
ordeal as threatening, insubordinate,  disrespectful,  unprofessional,
and unacceptable.  The commander indicated that he had seen these same
traits for too long.

On 10 Jul 91, the commander indicated that he had decided that  things
had gone  too  far.   The  applicant’s  disrespect  and  insubordinate
attitude and behavior toward both fellow NCOs and officers  was  going
to cease.  The applicant’s attitude had further deteriorated when  she
was not promoted and now would be forced  to  retire.   The  commander
indicated that he realized he must thoroughly document the applicant’s
continuing negativism and acts of  insubordination.   The  applicant’s
weight problem again had resurfaced.   The  applicant  considered  the
attempt to hold her accountable as harassment, and  she  continued  to
threaten discrimination complaints.  The commander told  her  that  he
wanted the applicant to train her new supervisor and  her  replacement
who he had identified.  The applicant responded with  “my  balloon  of
knowledge has burst.”  The commander told her to refill it and get  to
work.

On 15 Jul 91, the commander indicated that the applicant’s  series  of
“illnesses” had now begun.  The applicant  did  have  some  bona  fide
problems,  however,  the  applicant  was  obviously  manipulating  the
system.  At work, the applicant claimed that she  could  not  talk  or
only in extremely  low  tones,  making  working  relations  even  more
difficult, causing much frustration and repeating of  efforts.  XXXXXX
attempts to work with the applicant  and  communicate  with  her  were
severely hampered by her apparent  unwillingness  to  cooperate.   The
applicant continued to be disrespectful and  insubordinate.   She  had
increased the activity of bringing in witnesses whenever she was being
counseled,  further  deteriorating  squadron  morale.   The  commander
indicated that he did not allow this activity in his office  and  sent
away her witness.

About 17 Jul 91, the commander indicated that he was planning  a  trip
to Alaska which would include doubling for A&P and visiting radio  and
television stations.  He asked the applicant to set up an  appointment
with a local station so that the applicant could  train  both  XXXXXXX
and himself.  After reminding the applicant two days later  that  they
needed this training, the applicant finally did set  the  appointment.
The commander found out the day of the appointment that the  applicant
had also scheduled herself a personal appointment at McChord AFB which
resulted in cancellation of their training.  The  commander  indicated
that the applicant games of avoiding her responsibilities continued.

On 19 Jul 91, the applicant was again unresponsive to XXXXXX.  She had
made yet another appointment at McChord AFB and refused to  adequately
explain to XXXXXXX the reason for it.  The applicant  accused  XXXXXXX
of swearing or cursing at her.  The commander inquired as to what  was
said and the applicant  said  it  was  too  bad  to  repeat.   XXXXXXX
informed the commander that he told the applicant that she had a “s---
attitude.”

On 19 Jul 91, XXXXXX and the applicant asked to have  a  meeting  with
the commander.  The applicant claimed that  she  could  not  work  for
XXXXXX any longer.  She essentially refused to even try  to  work  out
differences.  The commander told the applicant and  XXXXXXX  he  would
look into options but to continue with the current format.

On 23 Jul 91, XXXXXXX, noted the applicant’s absence from work  during
the day.  The applicant continued to work her own agenda.

On 23 Jul 91, after noticing that the applicant was going to  numerous
doctor appointments at different locations, taking up much if not  the
entire day, the commander asked her to  explain  what  was  happening.
She essentially refused to respond saying that  the  commander  should
talk to her doctor.  In an effort to find out what was happening,  the
commander managed to track down two of  at  least  three  doctors  the
applicant was seeing at, at least,  three  different  locations.   The
issue was the applicant’s weight  status  (out  of  limits  but  under
waiver  for  an  acute  thyroid  problem).   The  commander  told  the
applicant that he knew she was being treated and that a  recent  blood
test would likely show that her problem was under control, which would
result in her being accountable for her  weight.   XXXXXX  at  XXXXXXX
stated that the applicant was very difficult to work with  and  stated
that she did not refer the applicant to XXXXXX Navy  Hospital  as  the
applicant had told the commander.  The applicant also told XXXXX  that
the commander had told her that she would no longer need to  take  her
thyroid pills.  Both were gross misrepresentations of the truth.

On 24 Jul 91, XXXXXXX from McChord called her and stated that she  had
spoken with XXXXXXX.  Together, they realized, in part, the  game  the
applicant  was  playing  and  their  sympathy  level  had  diminished.
XXXXXXX stated that the applicant’s  thyroid  was  within  tolerances.
Later that day, the applicant  came  to  the  commander’s  office  and
requested a copy of her DOA because she had heard about  it  and  felt
she was being “back stabbed.”  The applicant requested  permission  to
go to Social Actions.

On 24 Jun 91, without going  into  great  detail,  the  applicant  had
scheduled two appointments at McChord on two  successive  days,  which
would likely keep her from work which was becoming her normal mode  of
operation.  The commander personally called and made the  appointments
for the same day only to find out that the applicant called  back  and
canceled.  Later  that  day,  the  applicant  stopped  by  smiling  to
XXXXXXX, telling him that she was going to the IG.  The applicant said
she was also going to sick call for thyroid pills.  Upon  her  return,
the applicant claimed she had a serious migraine,  could  not  control
herself, and was going home on sick rest through the  next  day.   The
commander indicated that he seriously doubted her illness but  offered
to have someone drive her home—she refused.  The  commander  spoke  to
XXXXXXX.  He said he had to take her word for the illness.

On 24 Jul 91, the commander informed the applicant, after hearing more
about  her  threatening  complaints,   that   holding   other   people
accountable was just that,  but  with  her  it  was  harassment.   The
commander told her to readjust her thinking to reality.

On 29 Jul 91, XXXXXXX indicated another incident of  poor  performance
by the applicant.  A request for A&P support by  a  XXXXXX  was  going
unheeded.  Also, during another  conversation  about  the  applicant’s
numerous appointments, XXXXXXX informed her  that  the  commander  had
asked him to  keep  close  track  of  her  comings  and  goings.   The
applicant brought in another witness and stated that the commander had
told her that she could always do that.  The commander indicated  that
he did not believe that was a true statement in light of the fact that
he did not allow it in his office.

On 30 Jul 91, XXXXXXX has indicated that the applicant had developed a
technique of smiling and laughing when being given  instructions.   He
believed it was either an attempt to irritate him or suppress her  own
animosity.  On a separate occasion in  the  commander’s  office  about
this same time, the commander was giving instruction and counseling to
the applicant about  her  behavior  when  she  suddenly  developed  an
obvious  forced  coughing  attack.   It  was  very  discourteous   and
disruptive.  The commander finally just dismissed her in frustration.

On 16 Aug 91, following more episodes of going  from  one  doctor  and
location to another and missing much work, the  commander  called  the
applicant to his office where she was again  rude  and  disrespectful.
She would finish a statement with sir  but  in  a  very  disrespectful
tone.  The commander again asked her about her  medical  problems  and
she refused to answer, telling him to talk to her doctor  and  stating
that she could not trust anyone.  She  hinted  that  a  complaint  was
forthcoming and that the commander had been  biased  in  dealing  with
black people.  The commander offered to support her medical problem in
any way—she refused.  The commander spoke with XXXXXXX the day  before
and found out her problem dealt with a mammography, scheduled at XXXXX
Navy Hospital.  XXXXXX stated that this  procedure  should  have  been
handled at XXXXXXX, and  probably  was  not  serious.   This  was  the
commander’s first indication of the nature of  the  problem.   As  the
conversation in the commander’s office continued to disintegrate  with
the  applicant’s  disrespectful  and  noncooperative   attitude,   the
commander dismissed her and wrote her a Letter of Reprimand (LOR).

After issuing the LOR, the commander indicated  that  the  applicant’s
attitude  did  not  improve,  although  her  outright   defiance   and
disrespect of her superiors had ceased.  The  commander  assumed  that
counseling from the Area Defense Counsel or Social  Actions  may  well
have reversed her trend of blatant acts of disrespect.   In  reviewing
all of the documented events, the commander stated that he was certain
the casual observer could see clearly  that  a  nonrecommendation  for
promotion was most certainly warranted.  After the  many  attempts  at
correcting the applicant’s behavior had proven futile,  the  commander
strongly felt that the  only  reasonable  and  responsible  course  of
action  was  to  disallow  her  from  attaining  the  prestigious  and
responsible position of master sergeant.  The commander indicated that
he  thought  he  had   shown   that   the   applicant’s   demonstrated
unprofessionalism and uncooperative attitude were proof positive  that
this was the only logical course of action.

The applicant was to acknowledge receipt of the letter  notifying  her
of the nonrecommendation for promotion.  However, no  evidence  exists
that she did so.

The applicant retired from active duty effective, 1  Mar  92,  in  the
grade  of  technical  sergeant.   She  was  credited  with  20  years,
4 months, and 23 days of active duty service.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The Social Actions Branch, AFMPC/DPMYCS, reviewed this application and
indicated that they contacted the McChord AFB  Social  Actions  office
and were informed that the applicant’s  case  file  was  destroyed  in
accordance with AFR 30-2, The Social  Actions  Program.   XXXXXXX  the
Equal Opportunity and Treatment (EOT) Specialist at  McChord  recalled
the case was complex in nature because it dealt with  recruiters  from
the east and west coasts, making it difficult to  process  within  the
normal time frame.  He also recalled that the  applicant  was  offered
promotion to the grade of master sergeant, but was not willing to  put
in the time to make the rank.  He said the  Chief  of  Social  Actions
worked the case, but he was no longer assigned to that base.   Without
the case file information, DPMYCS stated that they cannot support  the
applicant’s requests.

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

The Airman Promotion Branch, AFMPC/DPMAJW1, reviewed this  application
and recommended denial.  DPMAJW1 indicated that, based on the  content
of the commander’s letter, dated 22 Oct 91, he was acting  within  the
spirit and intent of AFR 39-29 when he  nonrecommended  the  applicant
for promotion.  Basic promotion policy is to advance airmen  who  have
clearly demonstrated the potential for more responsibility.  Of  those
airmen who show this potential for promotion, only the best  qualified
may be promoted.   Since  the  promotion  system  selects  airmen  for
promotion only from those who are recommended,  commanders  exercising
prudent judgment are fundamentally  responsible  for  maintaining  the
quality of enlisted promotions.  Before recommending  or  approving  a
promotion,  the  commander  must  review  the   commander’s   enlisted
management  roster  and  make  sure  the  recommended  airman’s   duty
performance,  training  progress,  and  supervisory   and   leadership
abilities clearly warrant promotion.   According  to  DPMAJW1,  it  is
clear that based on the content of the  commander’s  nonrecommendation
letter, the applicant should not have  been  promoted.   Although  the
applicant claims her witnesses were never contacted and  her  side  of
the story was never requested concerning the recommendation, this  was
not required to be done by the commander before he nonrecommended her.
 Again, based on the content of the letter, facts were  available  for
the commander to render a “no promote” decision.  Although the ratings
and content of the applicant’s last two Enlisted  Performance  Reports
(EPRs) are in contrast to the content of the nonrecommendation letter,
the commander stated that despite being given the benefit of the doubt
on her last two EPRs which were rated “5’s,” and given the benefit  of
the doubt on a recent commendation medal, each  action  of  which  was
designed to motivate the desired behavior, the applicant continued  in
her ways of insubordination and disrespect.  In  DPMAJW1’s  view,  the
nonrecommendation letter was procedurally correct; that is, it  listed
the specific reasons for the nonrecommendation and was presented prior
to the effective date of promotion of 1 Nov 91.  DPMAJW1 noted that it
appeared the applicant refused to sign it.

A complete copy of the DPMAJW1 evaluation,  with  attachments,  is  at
Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

In her response, the applicant  reiterated  her  previous  assertions.
She also indicated that her Air Force background does not warrant  the
character assassination that occurred when  her  commander  wrote  the
letter nonrecommending her for promotion.  In all  the  positions  she
has held, she was  required  to  get  along  with  both  enlisted  and
officers,  as  well  as  make  recommendations.   She  taught   pride,
professionalism, and military respect to many first-term airmen, never
neglecting to keep her own bearing above  reproach.   She  has  always
maintained a professional image.

Applicant stated that when the commander arrived at  the  3561st  USAF
Recruiting  Squadron,  she  was  the  only  African  American  in  the
headquarters  building.   According  to  the  applicant,  everyone  of
African American decent was systematically removed from  the  squadron
for one reason or the other, whether it was justified or not.

Applicant stated that the integrity of  the  commander  was  not  only
questioned by enlisted members of her squadron, but also officers.  In
her view, the character of the individual who nonrecommended  her  for
promotion should be known.   If  her  witnesses  had  been  given  the
opportunity to comment at the time this case  was  ongoing,  it  could
have made a big difference in the first outcome.

Applicant’s complete response and additional documentary evidence  are
at Exhibit F.

_________________________________________________________________

ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Pursuant to the  Board’s  request,  the  Office  of  the  Staff  Judge
Advocate, AFPC/JA, reviewed this application and  recommended  denial.
Although the applicant stated in her appeal that she was not  provided
due process, in JA’s view, the real  basis  of  her  claim  is  racial
discrimination and/or retaliation against her  for  filing  claims  of
racial discrimination.  According  to  the  applicant,  her  commander
prevented her from becoming a master sergeant because  he  was  either
prejudiced against African Americans or was  retaliating  against  her
because she filed complaints of racism against him with the  Inspector
General (IG) and Social Actions.

According to JA, the applicant’s current claims of race discrimination
and retaliation are essentially a request for the Board to  reconsider
the negative findings of the Social  Actions  and  IG  investigations.
The applicant has offered no credible evidence to support her  claims.
Her present application is  simply  a  rehash  of  matters  previously
presented and rejected in earlier investigations.   After  review,  JA
indicated that they find them no more persuasive now  than  they  were
then.  It was the applicant’s insubordination and defective  attitude,
not race or retaliation, which compelled the commander to  cancel  her
promotion.

In summary, it is JA’s opinion that the  applicant  is  a  disgruntled
former technical sergeant  whose claims of racism and retaliation have
been  twice  investigated  and  found  to  be  without  merit.    This
application is a rehash of these unfounded claims.   JA  believes  the
commander’s decision to  cancel  the  applicant’s  promotion  is  well
supported by the evidence.  JA noted that during the final three years
of her service, the applicant’s increasingly hostile attitude began to
manifest itself.  Attempts by her supervisors to establish  a  working
relationship were met with gross insubordination,  cold  indifference,
and undisguised hostility.  When her misconduct became too serious  to
tolerate  further,  the  commander  decided   she   was   not   senior
noncommissioned (NCO) material and canceled her promotion.   Moreover,
her claims of racial bias  are  inconsistent  with  the  positive  and
rehabilitative actions the commander took on the  applicant’s  behalf.
Despite being provided numerous opportunities to prove  herself  ready
for advanced rank, her  continuing  conflicts  only  demonstrated  the
opposite.  Finally, JA believes the applicant’s claims of  retaliation
are likewise without merit.  According to JA, the  applicant  did  not
contact Social Actions until more than two weeks after  the  commander
decided to cancel her promotion.  As they could find neither error nor
injustice, JA recommends that the Board deny the  application  in  its
entirety.

A complete copy of the JA evaluation is at Exhibit G.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

In  her  initial  response,  with  which   she   provided   additional
documentary evidence, the applicant indicated that the  statement  she
was denied promotion in retaliation  for  filing  claims  against  her
commander is true to the best of her knowledge.   He  did  not  submit
anything until he found  out  for  sure  that  she  was  submitting  a
complaint against him.  She filed a Recruiting  IG  complaint  against
her commander and his unfair practices,  and  he  was  told  about  it
through the group vice commander.

Applicant feels that she was unjustly treated and unfairly accused  of
accusations that were misinterpreted  and  turned  against  her.   Her
witnesses where never contacted to verify dates, times, or situations.
 And because of that, her case was harder to prove, but true.

Applicant  submitted  another  response  and  additional   documentary
evidence.

Applicant’s total responses and additional documentary evidence are at
Exhibit I.

_________________________________________________________________

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  probable  error  or  injustice.   The  applicant's
complete submission was thoroughly reviewed, and her contentions  were
duly noted.  However, a majority  of  the  Board  does  not  find  the
applicant’s assertions and the documentation presented in  support  of
her appeal sufficiently persuasive to override the rationale  provided
by the office of the Staff Judge Advocate  (AFPC/JA).   Therefore,  in
the absence of evidence to the  contrary,  a  majority  of  the  Board
adopts AFPC/JA’s rationale  and  conclude  that  no  basis  exists  to
recommend granting the relief sought in this application.

4.  The applicant's case is adequately documented and it has not  been
shown  that  a  personal  appearance  with  or  without  counsel  will
materially  add  to  our  understanding  of   the   issues   involved.
Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorably considered.

_________________________________________________________________

RECOMMENDATION OF THE BOARD:

A majority of the  panel  finds  insufficient  evidence  of  error  or
injustice and recommends the application be denied.

_________________________________________________________________

The following members of the  Board  considered  this  application  in
Executive Session on 22 May 97, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

      Ms. Martha Maust, Panel Chair
      Mr. Richard A. Peterson, Member
      Mr. Kenneth L. Reinertson, Member

By a majority vote, the Board voted to deny  the  request.   Ms. Maust
voted to grant the request; however, as of  7  Nov  00,  she  has  not
submitted  a  signed  minority  report.   The  following   documentary
evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 20 Oct 94, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFMPC/DPMYCS, dated 13 Dec 94.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, AFMPC/DPMAJW1, dated 9 Jan 95.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 23 Jan 95.
    Exhibit F.  Letter, applicant, undated, w/atchs.
    Exhibit G.  Letter, AFPC/JA, dated 9 Aug 96.
    Exhibit H.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 24 Sep 96.
    Exhibit I.  Letters, applicant, dated 2 Nov 96 and 26 Nov 96,
                w/atchs.




                                   RICHARD A. PETERSON
                                   Acting Panel Chair


AFBCMR 94-04272






MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, AIR FORCE BOARD
                       FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS (AFBCMR)

SUBJECT:  AFBCMR Application of

      I have carefully reviewed the evidence of record and the
recommendation of the Board members.  A majority found that applicant
had not provided sufficient evidence of error or injustice and
recommended the case be denied.  I concur with that finding and their
conclusion that relief is not warranted.  Accordingly, I accept their
recommendation that the application be denied.

      Please advise the applicant accordingly.





                                         JOE G. LINEBERGER
                                         Director
                                         Air Force Review Boards
Agency