A I R   FORCE  BOARD  FOR  CORRECTION O F   MILITARY RECORDS 

RECORD  OF  PZOCEEDINGS 

I N   THE  MATTER O F :  

DGCKET  NUMBER: 

9 8 - 0 1 2 4 1  

COUNSEL: 

NONE 

HEARING D E S I R E D :   NO 

APPLICANT REOUESTS  THAT: 

His assignment 

be canceled. 

APPLICANT CONTENDS T H A T :  
His  follow-on assignment  from Air War  College  (AWC) 
as a Flight Surgeon is well below his qualification and is an act 
of  reprisal - 
The applicant states that he is an Aerospace Medicine  (physician) 
specialist.  He  completed  the  Residency  in  Aerospace  Medicine 
(RAM) in 1990, and he is board-certified  in this specialty.  His 
entire operational career in the A i r   Force has been spent working 
in this area of  specialty. 
The applicant notes that on 23 November 1996, the Medical Service 
Corps Education Board non-selecte~ him  f o r   Senior Service School 
(SSS! in-residence.  He  appealed  the decision  to  the AFBCMR  and 
subsequently, A F P C   was directed t o   award him an SSS quota f o r   in- 
residence  attendance  in  1997. 
As  a  result  of  the  AFBCMR's 
ruling, AFPC/CC  questioned  h i s   selection  for  attendance  at  AWC 
versus  the  AFBCMR  directing  recompetition  by  a  supplemental 
school's board. He asked-- 
at AFPC/DPAMS which of the 3 
S S S s   he  would  attend  and  was  verbally  threatened  with  reprisal 
should  he  appeal  further  to  the  AFBCMR  to  request  a  quota  for 
N a t i o n a l   Defense  University  ( N D U )   versus AWC at Maxwell A F B .  

ed  a  memo 
supervisor , 
of the conversation. 
capable of  s u c h   cond 
ersation  w i t h   his  rat 

handled 

his 

who 

promot ion  appeal. 
e received a copy of a memorandum to S A F / M I B R   from 
O f f i c e   of  the  Surgeon  General  ( A F / S C )  ,  which 
clearly  was  intended  to  discredit  his 
eligibility  and 
qualifications for-  SSS.  He notes that  in the last paragraph  of 

earlier 

the memorandum it stated, rrapplicant's record w a s   not selected by 
the  supplemental  b o a r d .  
He  has  not  completed  any  l e v e l   of 
P r o f e s s i o n a l   Mill tary  E d u c a t i o n .  " 
First, he  was  never  entered 
into a supplemental board as it was only going to board colonels 
and he had a directed quota from AFBCMR.  Second, the issue of no 
prior  Professional Military  Education  @ME)  is  irrelevant  since 
it  is  not  a  criteria  for  S S S   selection. 
Third,  and  most 
violated  his  privacy  by 
important, 
disclosing details of his appeal to AF/SG.  They further violated 
the spirit of the AFBCMR's intent to correct his military records 
to show that he was considered and selected for SSS on the first 
selection board held.  While they may have needed to inform AF/SG 
that he  was going to SSS, it  was  a g r o s s   miscarriage of  justice 
to  expose  the  details  of  his  appeal, or  for  them  to  interject 
their opinion of his  "worthiness' to attend SSS. 

or 

The  applicant states that  he  was  given  an  SSS quota  for AWC  at 
Maxwell AFB.  It was clear there was some manner of defiance and 
consternation in the medical community over the AFBCMR's decision 
to  grant  him  a  SSS  quota  outright.  He  notes  that  he  has  done 
well in AWC at Maxwell and will graduate 1 June 1998.  He is now 
appealing  to  the  AFBCMR,  because  he  was  given  a  4-hour  notice 
that  he  would  be  placed  on  assignment  since  he  had  not  been 
selected for any Squadron Commander j o b s   he had volunteered for. 
He  has  been  assigned  as  a 
which  is 
well below his qualificationfosition 
on 
two previous assignments as a major.  Furthermore, this job will 
not utilize his medical expertise nor is it commensurate with his 
AWC  attendance.  There  is  no  benefit  here  for  the  Air  Force. 
This  will  definitely  send  a  message  to  the  c o l o n e l   promotion 
board  (which he  meets  BPZ  in  November  1 9 9 8 )   that  he  is  going 
nowhere  in  his  career  development. 
This  w l l l   significantly 
affect his competitiveness in all of his future promotion boards, 
and all  future jobs.  This negates the value of having attended 
SSS in-residence and defies his performance r e c c r d .  
The  applicant states that  in September 1997, an  assignment  team 
from AFPC, came to AWC  to brief  them  on how  they were  going  to 
"hand massage"  all of  their assignments and have them assigned by 
February  1998. 
T h e   message  was  that  they  were  of  special 
significance to  the Air  Force because  they  were  in the top  10% 
of  officers and clearly "marked"  for senior leadership.  He felt 
confident  that  he  would  have  n3  trouble  qualifying  or  being 
placed  into  a  challenging  leadership position  upor, graduation. 
They also provided time slots allocated to discussing assignments 
with each resource manager one -on-one.  When he tried to sign-up, 
the  roster  was  full  and  he  was  unable  to  meet  his  assignments 
officer  Face-to-face; however  he  does  not  believe  t h i s   impacted 
the current situation. 

. 

On 27 October 1997, he received the  Following messaze  from  AFPC, 
I r  C o o r d i n a  ti 011  w_l: th 
If  you 

w i l l   P r o c e e d   for-  a  98 j o b .  

3 

L, 

which  w i l l   then  set you  up f o r   a  qroup command a f t e l -  you pin  on 
06  (Colonel) .  T h a n k s .  ". 

On  12  January  1998,  all  t h e   rredical  corps  students  at  AWC 
received  a  notification  from  the  assignments  branch  at  AFPC. 
Clearly he was identified to be assigned as a squadron commander. 
He replied on 26 January 1998, opening a dialogue that reflected 
his intent and preferences.  On 6 February 1998, he e-mailed AFPC 
assignments  personnel  asking  for  a  clarification  on  the 
assignment process  for  him.  They  promptly  replied  on  6 and  7 
February  1998.  From  January  1998  to  the  present,  a  litany  of 
communiques  have  occurred  becween  himself,  AFPC,  and  the  RAM 
assignments advisor to AFPC. 

He  would  beg  the  Board's  indulgence  to  read  the  "pink  slip" 
marked messages.  This will  clearly demonstrate his  endeavor  to 
communicate  his  preferences  based  on  experience,  expertise  and 
expectations he would believe the Air Force would have of someone 
graduating f r o m   AWC.  Clearly, he has done the best  he  could to 
avail  himself  to  a  fitting,  challenging  Aerospace  Medicine 
Squadron  (AMDS)  or  Aerospace  Medicine/Dental  Squadron  (ADOS) 
Commander position.  One  could  argue  he  failed  to  aggressively 
volunteer f o r   all available positions advertised, (Commander jobs 
or  any  other  Medical  j o b s ) ,   but  it  was  his  understanding  that 
this  was  a  voluntary  process  and  he  should  look  at  j o b  
progression.  In point of fact, he is the only lieutenant colonel 
aerospace medicine specialist at any SSS in residence. 

It  is  his  deduction  that  relatively  little  energy  has  been 
expended by  the  medical  assignments personnel  to  " s e l l "  him  to 
the Air Force community as a top contender.  He has come to  find 
out from  AFPC/DPAI that it is hcumbent upon him to  "sell himself 
to  Wing  Commanders  and  that  it  is  both  his  qualifications  and 
reputation that determine his  selection as a  squadron commander. 
If  there  is  anything  derogaLory  about  his  reputation, ne  would 
contend  that  the  most  likely  source  was  from 
inappropriate action of reporting details of his AFBCMR appeal to 
AF/SG  and  the  letter  sent  to  SAF/MIBR  on  15  April  1597.  He 
believes that  he  "poisoned  the  well" and has gotten  the medical 
assignments people to make good  on his threat of  "You may win the 
battle  (go to SSS) but  lose t h e   wax- (a good assignment) . "   Other 
than  that, he  has  no  reason  to  think  that  he  has  less  than  a 
superior reputation 

The  applicant  finds  it  unfathomable  that  he  has  riot  received, 
what  he  con 
positions at 
particularly 

said t h e s e   w e r e   t h e   type of jobs he should volunteer 
for.  He has availed himself to these aforementioned assignments 
quite commensurate w i t h   his  skills and experience. 

He  volunteered  for  t h e  
numerous  messages  f rorn 

position.  He  received 
G  and  personally  spoke 

3 

 

as  well  as 
with  the  incumbent 
e  would  be  an 
dialoguing  with  AFPC. 
excellent match  for the  j o b .  
Then  as  time  went  by, allegedly, 
the Wing Commander preferred a colmel  (Dentist) to take command 
in  order  to  avoid  a  rank  inversion  situation  as  there  was 
allegedly  a  colonel  working  in  Gentistry.  Rank  inversion, he 
believes,  is  not  a  significant  issue  in  the  Medical  Services 
3
he was a captain and had  a 
t h e   same  j o b   capacity  at 
he  was  a  new  major  and  had  a  lieutenant 

erving a

s

colonel and a colonel working f o r   kim. 

There were no problems. 

Squadron Commander ,  as 
He  also competed  for 
is a lieutenant colonel 
did 19 other people. 
Optometrist,  two  years  junior  In  rank  to  him,  and  no  SSS  in- 
esently an AMDS  Squadron Commander 
residence.  F u r t h e  
at 
since 
He doesn't need a second command 
posit ion. 

He also volunteered for Squadron Commander at 
but 
that  job  went  to  a  flight  surgeon who  had  been  assigned  there 
previous to his current assignment at 

Attempting  to  remain  objective,  and  with  4  weeks  before  SSS 
graduation,  he  appeals  to  the  AFBCMR  to  intervene  into  his 
assignment process  because  it  appears  certain  that  he  is  being 
"aimed1' in the wrong direction. 

-  and- 

The applicant states that he has tc:  address the issue of reprisal 
that  began  with  his  selection f o r   SSS.  The  personnel  involved 
have  since PCS'd.  However, they 
then, 
worked in the same directorate 2s the current medical assignment 
personnel and may have been in a pssition to "flag" his record as 
a  "trouble-maker"  because  of  his  appeal  to  the  BCMR 
f o r   SSS 
attendance.  Add  to this, the  " f l a r e "   that was sent to AF/SG  and 
a  reply  from  same  to  SAF/MIBR  ana  him,  highlighted  him  as  a 
"problem  person.  His  current  dilemma,  and  the  association  of 
previous  and  current  medical  personnel  at  AFPC,  seem 
unquestionably related. 

He  trusted  the  assignment  systern  t o   place  him  in  a  position 
commensurate  with  his  abilities  arid  AWC  attendance.  When  he 
received  the  initial  reprisal  threats  from  -, 
the 
AFBCMR  was  made  aware  of  the  situation.  They became  concerned 
also  f o r   his  %xxvival"  aft.er  AWC  and  asked to be  kept apprised 
of  his  assignment  outcome.  Since  he  has  been  assigned  to  a 
position  (Flight  Surgeon)  of  lesser  responsibility  than  SSS 
graduation would have normally called for, he implores the AFBCMR 
to review his assignment selection and  intervene to correct this 
error.  He is not asking for a specific job, or even a Commander 
position, even though the medical assignments people have  s t a t e d  
that  would  be  his  logical  j o b   progression.  He  only  asks  t h e  
AFBCMR  t o   ensure he  is not victimized by  this reprisal and  g r a n t  

4 

him a follow-on assignment from A K  that w i l l   best use his skills 
and benefit from h i s   SSS attendanc?. 
Applicant's complete submission is attached at Exhibit A. 

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 

Applicant is currently serving on extended active duty in the 
grade of lieutenant colonel. 

On  21  February  1997, applicant  submitted an  application to  the 
Board requesting that he be awarded an SSS quota f o r   1997.  After 
reviewing  the  evidence  submitted,  the  Board  found  that 
applicant's record, when considered by the PME Selection Board in 
November  1996, reflected  that  he  was  selected  f o r   promotion  to 
the  grade  of  lieutenant  colonel  above-the-promotion-zone  which 
placed  him  at  a  distinct  disadvantage.  As  a  result  of  his 
selection  for  promotion  to  lieutenant  col.one1  by  a  Special 
Selection  Board  (SSB),  he  was,  in  fact,  selected  in-the- 
promotion-zone.  In  addition,  the  Board  found  that  his  latest 
Officer Performance Report  ( O P R )   was  not a matter of  record when 
considered  for PME selection.  The Board  concluded that had  the 
applicant's records been correct at the time he was considered by 
the PME selection board  in 1995, he would  have been selected for 
SSS. 

Applicant  completed Air  War  Coliese  (AWC) in June  1998 and  has 
Applicant  completed Air  War  College  (AWC) in June  1998 and  has 
assignment  orders  to  the 
assignment  orders  to  the 
with a reportin 
with a reportin 

AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

The  Chief ,  Medical  Service  Off i e ? i - ,   AFPC/DPAM,  reviewed  this 
application and states the f o l l o w i c g :  

a .   The  applicant contends that based on the interactions he 
had with personnel assigned to AFFC'DPAM he has been flagged as R 
troublemaker.  However, AFPC/DPAM  1s  not  aware  of  any  reprisal 
activities  which  the  applicant  alleges  took  place.  No  one  in 
AFPC/DPAM  was  influenced  by  prio:-  issues  associated  with  the 
applicant.  T h e   issue of a prior EZMR  was unknown to- 
xiti1  the  applicant  filed his  appeal.  In the  Fall  of  1997, e 
with 
visited AFP 
-of 
was f o l l o w i n g  
about the applicari 
and 
ed in an 
11:s  future assignment progress b e c a  
incident that might  make  him  subje 
did  not 
elaborate, and neither 
ledge of 
At  no  time  during  the  assignment 
his  prior  AFBCMR  appeal. 
selection process  for the  applicar,: were  any  of  t h e   individuals 

AFPC/- 

5 

-- 

named  by  him  contacted  for information concerning his projected 
assignment  Nei 
- - ,  
0 
attempts v,Tere  made  to promote the applicant into the jobs he was 
seeking. 

tneir  opinion. 

solicited 

I  cir 

~ 

b.  T h e   applicant  contends  the  position  is  well  below  his 
qualifications  since  he  has  held  t h e   same  position  on  t w o  
previous  assignments as  a  major,  the  job  will  not  utilize  his 
medical  expertise,  and  is  not  commensurate  with  his  AWC 
attendance.  In  this  regard, AFPC/DPAM  notes  that  the  Officer 
Assignment  System  (OAS) is  based  upon  members  volunteering  for 
advertised positions and being  selected by  the hiring authority. 
AFPC  advertises  positions  and  provides  lists  of  qualified  and 
eligible  candidates to  hiring  authorities  f o r   selection.  AFPC 
also brokers with  hiring authorities when members  must  move  and 
have not  secured a  job.  Occasionally, AFPC  assigns officers in 
conjunction with mission requirements when there is no volunteer. 
This  is done with  the  officer I  s proper  professional  development 
in mind.  AFPC/DPAM  is n o t   the  hiring  authority except  f o r   t h e  
In the applicant's case, he 
f e w   officers assigned to A F P C / D P W .  
volunteered  for  five  assignments,  inciuding  two  aerospace 
medicine  squadron commander assignments.  He was not selected by 
the hiring authority f o r   all five of those assignments.  His name 
to  j o b   ads  f o r   two  medical 
was  also  added  by 
operations  squadrons 
ad  f o r   an  aerospace  medicine 
squadron.  However,  based  on  his  stated  desire  to  remain  in 
aerospace  medicine-related  positions, 
withdrew  his 
name  from  the  two  medical  operatims  squadron  ads.  A  hiring 
decision is still pending on the aer-ospace medicine squadron, and 
the applicant is one of a number of highly qualified volunteers. 

assignment  changing  his  duty  title, position  number, sauadron. 

' th  clarifications by 

Utilization  of  the  applicant's medical  expertise will  be  in  his 
new  position  as  Chief  of  Aerospace  Medicine.  The  applicant  is 
residency ti-ained in aerospace medicine, and  he  will 
residency  trained  Flight  Surgeon  assigned  to  the 
Clearly,  his  assignment  as  the  F1 ight  Cgrnmandei- of  Aerospace 
Medicine  is commensurate with his grade, expertise, and training 
and matches requirements of the job. 

The applicant's AWC attendance as a lunior lieutenant colonel was 
nce.  The  applicant: s  physician 
an  aberration 
ammmw -' 
e Usually,  senior  lieutenant  colonels,  or  more  frequently 
classmates are 
colonels,  are  selected  for  attendance.  Elis  attendance  in  a 

and 

I

'

 

6 

junior  grade  makes  him  ineligible  for  the  jobs  his  classmates 
were  considered for, but  should  reflect favorably in his Master 
Personnel File  for future opportunities and promotion.  He will 
be  able to app1.y his AWC experience to this position as he would 
any other position of leadership. 

AFPC/DPAM cannot grant the applicant's request to be  assigned as 
an overage to the  School of Aerospace Medicine  at -as 
an academic instructor f o r   several reasons.  There is a shortage 
of 73  flight surgeons this year.  Assignment of  an overage would 
not  be  effective utilization of  resources.  Secondly, AFPC  has 
not received a request from the school to fill any vacancy which 
alify  to  fill.  Thirdly,  there  is  a  valid 
hich needs to be  filled.  And fourth, 
Sending  in  a  overage  would  not  assist  the 

organization in personnel reductions. 

The  applicant believes  the projected  assignment  will  negatively 
impact future promotion opportunities.  However, the applicant's 
assignment  as  a  lieutenant  colonel  Flight  Commander  is  not 
unusual.  The  Air  Force  has  a  total  of  68  lieutenant  colonel 
authorizations  f o r   Air  Force  Specialty  Code  48A  (Residency in 
Aerospace Medicine), excluding squadron commander billets and  an 
additional  19 commander, AFSC  48A, slots.  There are a total of 
68 lieutenant colonel, AFSC 48A, and an additional 18 lieutenant 
colonel, AFSC  48A, in  training.  Of  the  6 G   lieutenant colonel, 
AFSC 48A, in the inventory, 24 are squadron commanders and 7 are 
flight commanders.  T h e   37 remaining are employed in a variety of 
jobs  other  than  commanders  and  most  are  clinical  positions. 
Additionally,  promotion  opportunities  are  based  on  the  whole 
person concept which would encompass, but not  be  limited to, the 
member's  entire  career,  board  certifications,  performance 
reports,  decorations , 
promotion 
recommendation of the senior rater. 

accomplishment,  arid 

PME 

AFPC/DPAM states that the applicant should take the position with 
the  knowledge  that  he  is  going  to  the  best. job  that  he  was 
selected  f o r   by  the  hiring  authority. 
By  impressing  his 
commander  with  his  new  talents,  he  will  build  on  his  career 
record  and  enhance  his  competitiveness  for  jobs  of  increasing 
responsibility.  Reprisal  was  never  in  t h e   minds  of  AFPC/DPAM 
personnel while working the applicant's assignment. 

A complete copy of  t h e   evaluation is attached at Exhibit C. 

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

Applicant reviewed the Air Force evaluation ana states that there 
are  many  inaccuracies and  exclusion  of  germane  items  of  vital 
importance.  He  states  that  he  is  a  specialist  in  the  area  of 
aerospace  medicine  and  he  is  very  farriliai-  with  career 
development  and  appropi-iateness  c €   assignments. 
He  still 

7 

AFB  Inspector General  (IG) - 

contends  that  he  is  a  victim  of  reprisal  by  personnel  at  AFPC 
medical  assignments. 
He  states  that  although  they  deny  the 
allegation, the elements that comprise a reprisal complaint have 
The 
onf irmed by  the 
AFB  IG  report 
en  Torwarded  to  the  Air  Force  IG 
and is expected to require several months to process due 
to a back log.  He contends that although the former personnel in 
medical assignments were not  logically solicited; he  states that 
it  is more  likely that  the  incumbent personnel had  apprised his 
successors  of  his  case  before  he  left  AFPC  to  go  to  his  new 
assignment.  He  further  states  that  he  would  not  expect  these 
personnel  to admit to this illegal activity.  That  is for an IG 
to  investigate.  Nonetheless,  the  ingredients for  reprisal are 
all  present. 
It  begins  with  a  threat  and  ends  with  an 
unfavorable personnel action.  In reference to AFPC stating that 
the  OAS  is  based  upon  members  volunteering  for  advertised 
positions  and being  selected by  the hiring authority, he  states 
that  his  analysis  of  this  operation  is  a  capriclous  “good old 
boy” system that allows AFPC to abandon personnel to the mercy of 
luck, or if  they decide  otherwise, they intervene on a person’s 
behalf  to get  them placed  into an appropriate j o b .  
He has seen 
no evidence of AFPC brokering on his behalf.  He states that he 
has been  in a must-move  position since being assigned to AWC  in 
August of 1997.  AFPC personnei came to AWC and assured them they 
would  get  them  appropriate jobs  because  they were  to be  placed 
ahead  of  those  individuals  n o t   in  attendance  at  AWC. 
In 
reference  to  the  statement  that  he  volunteered  for  five 
assignments, he states that he volunteered fo 

volunteer  to  be 
He was given a fo 

to pick an assignment by close of business with the understanding 
that  when  he  was  selected  for  a  squadron commander’s job, that 
what  he  agreed  to  then  would  become  null  and  void.  During  a 
from AFPC, he was asked f o r   a 
telephone conversatioc with a 
geographical preference and replied, 
That is h o w   he 
became  a  volunteer  for  the  nan-squadron commander‘s job.  He 
states  that  he  was  s e n t   an  urgent  e-mail  message,  stating  that 
they had made a mistake about the 
job.  He was told that 
he  would  not  be  the  Chief  of  Aeromedical  Services  after  all. 
Instead, he would be  Flight Commander.  He was given a different 
position number, but  tile  gist is that it is the same j o b   as Chief 
of  Aerospace  Medicine,  just  3  fancier  title  w i t h   the  word 
commander salted into it.  EE  states that  a  flight  commander is 
the same thing a s   Chief  of Aeromedical Services.  L t   is the same 
job that  is well  beneath  his  qualifications and  experience.  He 
states that this is mere  s e m a n t i c s   and  even AFPC proves  that  bv 

at  he  voyunteered  for 

and  saying  it’s the  sa 

states  that  these  semantics  are  canparable  to  z  janitor  being 
called  a sanitation erigineer.  He  states that  this act  alone  is 
convincing ,evidence  that  t h e   medical  assignments  personnel  at 
AFPC have not done t h e i r   job i r i   placing him into command nor does 
he  have  any  reason to uelieve  t h e y   w i l l  
As  far as he  knows, 
is  s t i l l   open  w i t h  
the AMDS  Squadron Corc7nander  ~

at- 
1

0

~

 

8 

numerous candidates.  He respectfully requests the Board consider 
placing him into the job before some else is chosen and there are 
no  options.  He  believes  a  quick  placement  as  AMDS  Squadron 
will  challenge  him  sufficiently and  he 
Commander  at 
will serve the Air Force well. 

” 

Applicant’s complete response is atcached at Exhibit E. 

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT: 

The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by existing 

1. 
law or regulations. 

2.  The application was timely filed. 

3 .   Insufficient  relevant  evidence  has  been  presented  to 
demonstrate t h e   existence of probable error or injustice.  After 
thoroughly  reviewing  the  evidence  of  record  and  notina  the 
are  not  persuaded  that  the 
applicant’s  contentions,  w e  
applicant ’ s assignment t o  
s h o u l d   be  canceled.  The 
his 
applicant  believes  the  assiGnment 
qualifications. 
However,  i.r  qpears  the  applicant’ s  medical 
expertise  will  be  utilized  11-1 his  assignment  as  the  Flight 
Commander  of  Aerospace  Medicirie  and  is  commensurate  with  his 
grade, expertise, and training.  We note that applicant has filed 
an  AF/IG  complaint  and  if  the  results  of  that  investigation 
reveal  that his  assignment was based  on anything other that  the 
needs  of  the  Air  Force,  k  is  encouraged  to  request 
reconsideration of his applicatm::.  Therefore, in the absence of 
evidence  to  the  contrary,  we  find  no  basis  upon  which  to 
recommend  favorable consideration  of  the  relief  sought  in  t h i s  
application. 

is  well  below 

J 

-

~

THE  BOARD  DETERMINES THAT: 
T h e   applicant  be  notified  that  the  evidence  presented  did  riot 
demonstrate  the  existence  of  probable  material  error  or 
injustice;  that  the  application  was  denied  without  a  personal 
appearance;  and  that  t h e   application will  only  be  reconsidered 
upon  the  submission  of  newly  discovered  relevant  evidence  not 
considered with this applicatio::. 

~

-

 

The following members of the Board considered this application in 
Executive  Session on  11 June  1998, under  the  provisions of  AFI 
3 6 - 2 6 0 3 :  

Mr. Thomas S. Markiewicz, Panel Chair 
Mr. Robert W. Zook, Member 
Ms. Olga M. Crerar, Member 
Mr. Phillip E. Horton, Examiner  (without vote) 

The following documentary evidence was considered: 

Exhibit A. 
Exhibit B. 
Exhibit C. 

DD Form 149, dated 28 Apr 98, w/atchs. 
Applicant’s Master Personnel Records. 
Letters, AFPC/DPAM, dated 21 May &  4 Jun 98, 
w/atchs. 

Exhibit D.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 8 Jun 98. 

Exhibit E.  Letter, Applicant, dated 8 Jun 98 P 
THOMAS S. ”,* 

MARKIEWICZ 

’  Parlel Chair 

U 

10