RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  97-02137
            INDEX CODES:  111.01, 110.03

            COUNSEL:  STEPHEN HRONES

            HEARING DESIRED:  YES


_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

Her Officer Performance Reports (OPRs) closing 13 Jul 94 and 7 May  95
be declared void and removed from  her  records;  and,  she  be  given
Special Selection Board (SSB) consideration.

If promoted, she be given a corrected  promotion  service  date  (PSD)
back to the original PSD, with back pay.

She be reappointed in the Air National Guard (ANG) in a  position  for
which she qualifies.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

She vehemently believes that the contested OPRs were  written  by  the
rater with malicious and vindictive intent to ensure that  her  career
with the ANG would end via either the State of Massachusetts Selection
Retention Program or the Reserve Officer Promotion Act (ROPA)  Captain
Selection Board.

In support of her appeal, the applicant provided a personal statement,
statements  to  individuals  requesting  support  of  her  appeal,   a
supportive statement from the Commander, 101st Air  Control  Squadron,
copies of a State ANG  Selective  Retention  Recommendation  Form  and
OPRs, and other documents associated with the matter under review.

Applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Available documentation indicates that the applicant was  appointed  a
second lieutenant, Air National Guard and as  a  Reserve  of  the  Air
Force on 3 Aug 89.

By letter, dated 2 Nov 96, the applicant was notified that  since  she
had been twice considered and not recommended for promotion,  the  law
required that her active status as an  officer  in  the  Air  National
Guard and as a Reserve of the Air Force be terminated not  later  than
15 Nov 96.

Information extracted from the Personnel Data System  (PDS)  indicates
that she is currently assigned to the  Inactive  Status  List  Reserve
Section (ISLRS) of the  Air  Force  Reserve  in  the  grade  of  first
lieutenant.  She was credited with 21 years  of  satisfactory  Federal
service for retirement.

Applicant's OER/OPR profile follows:

      PERIOD ENDING    EVALUATION

       2 Aug 90  Meets Standards (NON-EAD)
      13 Jul 91  Meets Standards (NON-EAD)
      13 Jul 92  Meets Standards (NON-EAD)
      13 Jul 93  Meets Standards (NON-EAD)
  *  13 Jul 94   Meets Standards (NON-EAD)
  *   7 May 95   Meets Standards (NON-EAD)
       7 May 96  Meets Standards (NON-EAD)

Contested Reports.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The  Office  of  the  Chief,  Utilization,  ANG/MPPU,  reviewed   this
application and recommended relief in part.  After a  thorough  review
of the applicant’s request for correction, ANG/MPPU  recommended  that
the OPR closing 13 Jul  94  be  removed  from  her  official  military
record.  They  believe  this  action  corrects  the  procedural  error
inasmuch as the rating of the front of the report does not agree  with
the comments on the back of it.

ANG/MPPU did not believe the applicant’s request for  removal  of  the
OPR closing 7 May 95 and an SSB was appropriate.  In ANG/MPPU’s  view,
the applicant failed to show by preponderance  of  evidence  that  the
report contained  an  error.   ANG/MPPU  believed  the  applicant  was
considered for promotion fairly by the promotion board, and  that  the
narrative comments on the back accurately  reflected  the  performance
for the period in question.

A complete copy of the ANG/MPPU evaluation,  with  attachment,  is  at
Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Counsel indicated they disagree that relief should only be granted  in
part.  The captain board considered both OPRs.  If one of the OPRs was
deemed to be in error and should be removed, the applicant’s record as
presented to the promotion  board  was  tainted.   As  a  result,  the
applicant was not given a fair shot at being  selected  for  promotion
and justice dictates that she should be granted  her  request  for  an
SSB.

Counsel stated that they have every confidence that the Board’s review
of the entire record will end with the resolution that  the  applicant
should be reinstated into the ANG as soon as possible.

Counsel’s complete response is at Exhibit E.

_________________________________________________________________

ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Pursuant to the Board’s request,  the  Promotions  Branch,  ARPC/DPJA,
reviewed this application and indicated that if the  AFBCMR  rules  in
favor of the applicant's request to remove the OPRs closing 13 Jul  94
and 7 May 95, the applicant's corrected record should meet  a  special
review board (SRB) in lieu of the  FY96  and  FY97  Captain  Selection
Boards.

According to DPJA, if the AFBCMR agrees with the ANG recommendation to
remove only the OPR closing 13 July 1994,  the  applicant's  corrected
record should meet an SRB  in  lieu  of  the  FY96  and  FY97  Captain
Selection Boards.      Selection by the FY96 SRB  would  result  in  a
date of rank (DOR) and promotion effective  date  (PED)  of  3  August
1996.  This is the same DOR and PED  the  member  would  have  had  if
selected by the  original board.  If not selected by the FY96 SRB, the
applicant should meet the FY97 SRB.  If recommended for promotion, the
DOR and PED should be 1 October 1996.

DPJA indicated that no further action is necessary if the applicant is
not recommended for promotion by either SRB.

A complete copy of the DPJA evaluation is at Exhibit F.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Counsel indicated that the many contradictions in the rater’s  ratings
and the lack  of  any  documented  written  or  verbal  reprimands  or
warnings  regarding  specific  unsatisfactory   performance   on   the
applicant’s part raise an eyebrow as to the fairness  and  objectivity
of the rater’s evaluation of the applicant.

Counsel’s complete response and additional documentary evidence are at
Exhibit H.

_________________________________________________________________

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.   Applicant’s  complete
submission was thoroughly reviewed and  her  contentions  duly  noted.
However, we find no evidence which has shown to our satisfaction  that
the applicant’s evaluators were  unable  to  render  fair  and  honest
assessments of her performance and promotion potential,  or  that  the
contested  reports  had  their  bases  in  factors  other   than   the
applicant’s performance.  We did note the recommendation  by  ANG/MPPU
that the OPR closing 13 Jul 94 be removed from the applicant’s records
because, in their  view,  the  report  contains  a  procedural  error.
Specifically, they did not believe that the ratings on  the  front  of
the report agreed with the comments on the back  of  it.   It  appears
that their support for removal of the report is based on comments from
the Executive Support Staff Officer of the Massachusetts Air  National
Guard (TAG MA/EESO).  TAG MA/EESO believes that the report should have
been referred to the applicant for an opportunity to  respond  to  the
comments.  TAG MA/EESO admits that the report was not required  to  be
referred  under  the  applicable  regulation.   However,  TAG  MA/EESO
believes it should have  been  referred  as  a  discretionary  matter.
Notwithstanding the recommendation, we  are  not  persuaded  that  the
contested report was rendered contrary to the  prevailing  regulation.
Therefore, in the absence of clear and convincing  evidence  that  the
contested reports were not accurate  assessments  of  the  applicant’s
performance at the time they were rendered, or, that the  OPR  closing
13 Jul 94 was technically flawed,  we  find  no  compelling  basis  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.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:

The  applicant  be  notified  that  the  evidence  presented  did  not
demonstrate the existence of probable  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  this  application  in
Executive Session on 27 Sep 99, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

      Mrs. Barbara A. Westgate, Panel Chair
      Mr. Vaughn E. Schlunz, Member
      Mr. Steven A. Shaw, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 14 Jul 97, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, ANG/MPPU, dated 26 Mar 98.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 22 Apr 98.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, counsel, dated 28 May 98.
    Exhibit F.  Letter, ARPC/DPJA, dated 12 Nov 98.
    Exhibit G.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 4 Jan 99.
    Exhibit H.  Letter, counsel, dated 1 Mar 99, w/atchs.




                                   BARBARA A. WESTGATE
                                   Panel Chair