RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  97-03257
                       INDEX CODE: 135.02, 135.03

                       COUNSEL:  None

                       HEARING DESIRED:  No


_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

1.    The Reserve Order (RO)  CB-001214,  Honorable  discharge  from  United
States Air Force Reserve (USAFR), be rescinded.

2.    She be awarded  satisfactory  retention/retirement  (R/R)  years  from
August 1993 to present.

3.     She  be  awarded  annual  retention/retirement  points,  at  a   rate
competitive for promotion, from August 1993 to present.

4.    She be retroactive promoted to the grade of 0-4 (major), which  should
have occurred during the Fiscal Year 1996 (FY96) Reserve of  the  Air  Force
Line/Health Professionals Board, that convened at Headquarters  Air  Reserve
Personnel Center (HQ ARPC) on 6 - 10 March 1995.

5.    She be awarded a promotion service date of 17 March 1994.

6.    She be reinstated in the USAF Reserves and assigned to an  appropriate
pay or non-pay position as mutually determined.

7.    Direct Headquarters Civil Air  Patrol-USAF  (HQ  CAP-USAF)  to  comply
with full disclosure of all documents in accordance  with  previous  Freedom
of Information Act (FOIA) requests.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The RO CB-001214, Honorable Discharge from the USAFR, resulted from lack  of
participation.  However, participation was  improperly  denied,  through  no
fault of her own, by HQ CAP-USAF and HQ USAFR.  Promotion to  the  grade  of
major is reasonably assumed had  HQ  CAP-USAF  and  HQ  ARPC  acted  on  the
findings  of  their  own  investigation.    Recommendation   (c)   of   that
investigation report stated that she should be  given  the  opportunity  for
another Officer Performance Report (OPR) prior to
the next major board and that, if selected, her date of  rank  be  backdated
to reflect the date she would normally be promoted.  None of this was  acted
upon, or addressed in any way, despite her follow-up efforts.  The  properly
appointed investigator confirmed in his 25 May 1995  Executive  Summary  and
Report that all adverse actions taken with respect to her by USAFR and  CAP-
USAF were unjustified (and should be reversed).  She appealed to  SAF/IG  in
June 1997.  They forwarded her request to HQ ARPC.  In  their  review  dated
26  August  1997,  HQ  ARPC/IG  unequivocally  concluded:   “We   feel   the
investigation  was  properly  conducted  and  conducted  within  the  proper
jurisdiction.  The investigation did in fact conclude and recommend in  your
favor.”

In support of the appeal, applicant submits HQ ARPC/IG Letter,  Request  for
TIG investigation, and Investigating Officer’s Reports.

Applicant's complete submission is attached at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant enlisted in the Regular  Air  Force  on  16  April  1979  and  was
honorably discharged on 11 July 1979 in  the  grade  of  staff  sergeant  to
accept commission as a  2nd  Lieutenant  in  the  United  States  Air  Force
Reserves (USAFR).  She served 2 months and 26 days of active service.

On 12 July 1979, the applicant was appointed a 2nd  Lieutenant,  USAFR,  and
ordered to active duty.

On 19 December 1985, the applicant was appointed a captain  in  the  Regular
Air Force.

On 1 August 1987 the applicant was honorably  discharged  from  the  Regular
Air Force for Vol Resign: Completion  of  Active  Duty  Service  Commitment.
She served 8 years and 21 days of total active service.

On 2 August 1987, the applicant was assigned HQ ARPC (NARS) and tendered  an
appointment as a captain, Reserve of the Air Force.

On 1 August 1989, she was reassigned from HQ ARPC  (NARS)  to  the  Inactive
Status List Reserve Section (ISLRS).

On 17 March 1993, the  applicant  was  relieved  from  HQ  ARPC,  ISLRS  and
assigned to Reserve Section: MX.  Her promotion service date was changed  to
17 March 1987 to account for her time in the ISLRS.

The applicant was assigned to HQ CAP-USAF from 17 March 1993 to  22 November
1994, and at  that  time  was  reassigned  to  HQ  ARPC  Non-Obligated  Non-
participating  Ready  Personnel  Section   (NNRPS/RD)   for   unsatisfactory
participation.  The applicant had a  satisfactory  year  for  the  R/R  year
ending 16 March 1994.  The applicant  did  not  participate  after  1  March
1994.

Applicant was considered and not selected for  promotion  to  the  grade  of
major by the FY96 (6 March 1995) and FY97 (4 March 1996) ResAF  Line/Nonline
Major Selection Boards.

On 15 July  1996,  the  applicant  was  relieved  from  HQ  ARPC  NNRPS  and
honorably discharged from the USAFR  on  15  July  1996,  in  the  grade  of
captain, under the provisions of AFR 35-41, Vol III.

In a memorandum from HQ CAP-USAF/JA to HQ ARPC/DPAD, dated 4 December  1997,
the Staff Judge Advocate states CAP-USAF does  not  have  the  authority  to
reinstate  the  applicant  as  she  demands.   However,   based   upon   the
applicant’s duty performance while working with the  CAP  in  Florida,  CAP-
USAF does not recommend any change in her present status.  Furthermore, CAP-
USAF does not desire to have her assigned to any position involving  contact
with the CAP.  In regard to her request to  direct  HQ  CAP-USAF  to  comply
with full disclosure of all  documents  in  accordance  with  previous  FOIA
requests, 5 USC 552 establishes the remedies available to  individuals  such
as the applicant who are dissatisfied with an agency’s response  to  a  FOIA
request.  This  is  a  matter  that  does  not  involve  correction  of  the
applicant’s records.  Therefore, the BCMR does not  have  the  authority  to
direct HQ CAP-USAF to respond in any particular manner to her FOIA request.

OER/OPR profile since 1987, follows:

           PERIOD ENDING           EVALUATION OF POTENTIAL

                       01 Jun 86             1-1-1
                       29 Apr 87             2-2-2 (Referral)
                       16 Mar 93           No report available
                   #   07 Dec 93             Meets Standards

# Top report at time of FY96 and FY97 board.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The Directorate of Personnel Program Management, HQ ARPC/DPAD, reviewed  the
application  and  states  that  the  applicant  received   full   and   fair
consideration to the grade of Reserve major on two occasions.  No  error  or
injustice occurred when the applicant was honorably discharged from  Reserve
commissioned status for the two deferrals because of the  operation  of  now
obsolete 10 U.S.C.  8846.   Recommend  denial  of  all  of  the  applicant’s
requests.

A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit C.
_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The  applicant  reviewed  the  Air  Force  evaluation  and  states  that  HQ
ARPC/DPAD’s opinion is non-responsive to the merits of the case,  incomplete
in its analysis, and illogical  in  its  recommendations.   She  has  worked
within the Air Force chain of command for  more  than  four  years  to  have
these injustices  and  errors  corrected.   Her  patience  and  professional
diligence have been met with intransigence and  discounted  at  each  level.
Even so, faith in the  ultimate  integrity  of  the  USAF  has  been  deeply
ingrained in her.  Neither the misguided actions of a few  individuals,  nor
the transparent cover-up attempts by headquarters, have  shaken  this  basic
trust.  She remains confident  that  the  Board  will  give  full  and  fair
consideration  to  evidentiary  facts  she  has  presented,  will  find  her
recommendations to be reasonable and proper, and will approve  her  requests
in full.

Applicant's complete response is attached at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The Staff Judge Advocate, HQ ARPC/JA, reviewed the  application  and  states
that based on the file provided, they are not in a position  to  assess  the
merits of the applicant’s claims.  They note that although an  investigation
was conducted into claims surrounding her  participation  in  the  CAP,  the
investigation  was  conducted  by  CAP,  not  HQ  ARPC.    While   the   CAP
investigating officer may have drawn certain conclusions, these  conclusions
represent only his opinion and cannot be  considered  conclusive  so  as  to
validate her claim.  As an example,  they  note  the  investigating  officer
failed to note that the applicant, as a ten  year  Air  Force  officer,  did
little to nothing in working to
alleviate her lack of training  with  the  CAP.   They  believe  an  officer
should take more self-responsibility.  They agree  with  HQ  DPAD  in  their
assessment that no further action is necessary.

A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit E.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant reviewed the Air Force evaluation and states that as with  the
opinion provided by ARPC/DPAD,  this  opinion  does  not  dispute  a  single
statement of fact presented in her original appeal to  the  Board.   ARPC/JA
is incorrect in all of its objections: (a) the investigation  was  conducted
by  CAP  because  ARPC/IG,  with  ARPC/JA’s  concurrence,  directed  it   be
conducted by CAP and later stated that it was  conducted  under  the  proper
jurisdiction.  (b) the USAFR investigation was properly appointed  according
to HQ ARPC/IG.  HQ ARPC committed itself to take  administrative  action  as
directed by AFBCMR.  (c) The  investigator  found  in  her  favor  and  this
finding was confirmed by ARPC/IG.

HQ ARPC/JA offers the  unsubstantiated  opinion  that  she  “did  little  or
nothing in working to alleviate her lack  of  training  with  the  CAP.   We
believe an officer should take  more  self-responsibility.”   JA  could  not
have made this irresponsible statement if it had  conscientiously  read  the
documents  she  submitted.   Her  actions   confirm   that   she   went   to
extraordinary lengths, in spite  of  active  resistance  and  hostility,  to
demonstrate the brand of proactive, assertive officership espoused by JA.

Not a single statement of fact she presented has been refuted  by  reviewing
agencies.  Yet, reviewers find it very difficult to believe that AF and  CAP
officers could behave  in  the  underhanded,  unprofessional,  illegal,  and
prejudicial ways she has documented.  This is understandable, since she  has
based her appeal strictly on documented  facts  and  events,  and  have  not
included motivations.  Still she recognizes that lingering doubt  faces  any
reviewer who cannot attach a “why” to these facts and events.

Applicant's complete response is attached at Exhibit G.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

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

2.    The application was timely filed.

3.    Sufficient relevant evidence has been  presented  to  demonstrate  the
existence of probable error or injustice warranting  voiding  Reserve  Order
CB-001214, dated 12  October  1996,  and  awarding  inactive  duty  training
points for retention/retirement years ending 16 March 1995 through 16  March
1999 to establish  satisfactory  years  of  service.   After  reviewing  the
circumstances surrounding the applicant’s  discharge  from  the  USAFR,  the
Board is of the opinion that she was placed in a situation that  was  beyond
her control.  The investigating officer (IO), USAF CAP-IG,  states  that  he
found  that  neither  the  applicant  nor  her  supervisor  engaged  in  any
intentional  wrongdoing.   Rather,  both  were  placed  in   an   unworkable
situation due to previous problems in Group 1 of the Florida Wing  and  lack
of  resources  and  man-days  for  Reserve  Assistance  Officers.   The   IO
recommended they  be  cleared  of  any  suspicion  of  fraud  and  that  the
applicant be reassigned to the active  Reserves  in  another  capacity.   We
agree.  After  reviewing  the  evidence  of  record,  we  believe  that  the
applicant was not provided a fair opportunity to succeed  in  her  position.
Therefore, we recommend that her separation from the Air  Force  Reserve  be
declared void; that her non-selections for promotion be set-aside; that  she
be assigned to an appropriate Air Force Reserve position  as  determined  by
the Air Force Reserve Personnel Center; and that she be provided  sufficient
non-paid inactive duty training  points  to  be  eligible  for  satisfactory
years of service from 1995 to 1999.  In addition, we  note  that  the  above
recommendations, will render applicant eligible for promotion  consideration
to the Reserve grade of major; however,  she  will  not  have  a  sufficient
record upon which to receive fair and equitable  consideration.   Therefore,
we also recommend that if she is considered and not selected  for  promotion
to  the  Reserve  grade  of  major  without  having  two   current   Officer
Performance Reports (OPRs) in her record, her nonselection(s) be set  aside.
 We believe this action will provide  her  with  an  opportunity  to  fairly
compete for promotion to the next higher grade.

4.    Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to  demonstrate  the
existence of probable error or injustice warranting favorable action on  the
remaining requests.  In this respect, we note the following:

            a.  Applicant’s request that she  be  promoted  to  the  Reserve
grade of major as if selected by the  FY96  selection  board  and  issued  a
promotion service date of 17 March  1994.   While  this  Board  agrees  that
applicant was not provided a fair opportunity to  perform  in  her  position
while assigned to HQ CAP-USAF;  however,  we  are  not  persuaded  that  her
failure to participate after March 1994 was the cause for her failure to  be
selected for promotion to the Reserve grade  of  major  by  the  FY96  board
which convened on 6 March 1995.  We observe  that  selection  board  members
considered many factors in determining whether or not an  individual  should
be selected for promotion.  While we believe that participation  is  one  of
the factors, we are not persuaded that her non-participation  was  the  sole
reason for her failure to be selected for promotion by the selection  boards
in question.  We believe that our recommendation to allow her  a  sufficient
period of time to develop a record of performance is the appropriate  relief
according to existing circumstances.  Therefore, in the absence of  evidence
to the contrary, we do not recommend that she be  promoted  to  the  Reserve
grade of major.

            b.  Her requests pertaining to  direct  HQ  CAP-USAF  to  comply
with full disclosure of documents, is  not  within  the  authority  of  this
Board.  In addition, her request that  she  be  assigned  to  an  Air  Force
Reserve position that is mutually determined, we do not  believe  that  this
Board should dictate where an individual should be  assigned.   This  action
will be based on applicant’s qualifications and on the need of the service.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT:

The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air  Force  relating
to APPLICANT, be corrected to show that:

      a.    She was not honorably discharged  from  the  United  States  Air
Force Reserve on 15 July 1996, and was ordered Permanent Change  of  Station
(PCS) to her home of selection pending further orders.

      b.    Reserve Order CB-001214, dated 12 October  1996,  relieving  her
from assignment HQ ARPC (NNRPS), be, and hereby is, declared void.

      c.    She was not considered for promotion to  the  Reserve  grade  of
major by the Fiscal Year 1996  and  1997  Reserve  Air  Force  Line/Non-line
Major Selection Boards.

      d.    She was credited with 35 nonpaid inactive  duty  training  (IDT)
points and 15  membership  points  during  retirement/retention  (R/R)  year
17 March 1994 through 16 March 1995, resulting  in  50  total  points;  and,
that  the  period  17 March  1994  through  16 March  1995  is  a  year   of
satisfactory Federal service for retirement.

      e.    She was credited with 35 nonpaid IDT  points  and  15 membership
points during R/R year 17 March 1995 through 16 March 1996, resulting in  50
total points; and, that the period 17 March 1995 through 16 March 1996 is  a
year of satisfactory Federal service for retirement.

      f.    She was credited with 35 nonpaid IDT  points  and  15 membership
points during R/R year 17 March 1996 through 16 March 1997, resulting in  50
total points; and, that the period 17 March 1996 through 16 March 1997 is  a
year of satisfactory Federal service for retirement.

      g.    She was credited with 35 nonpaid IDT  points  and  15 membership
points during R/R year 17 March 1997 through 16 March 1998, resulting in  50
total points; and, that the period 17 March 1997 through 16 March 1998 is  a
year of satisfactory Federal service for retirement.

      h.    She was credited with 35 nonpaid IDT  points  and  15 membership
points during R/R year 17 March 1998 through 16 March 1999, resulting in  50
total points; and, that the period 17 March 1998 through 16 March 1999 is  a
year of satisfactory Federal service for retirement

      i.    She was not considered for promotion to the grade  of  major  by
the Fiscal Year 1996 (FY96) and FY97 Reserve Air  Force  Line/Nonline  Major
Selection Boards.

It is further recommended that If she is considered  and  not  selected  for
promotion to the Reserve grade of major, without having two current  Officer
Performance Reports (OPRs) in her record, her nonselection(s) be set aside.

_________________________________________________________________

The following members of the Board considered this application in  Executive
Session on 27 May 1999, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

         Mr. Douglas J. Heady, Panel Chair
         Dr. Gerald B. Kauvar, Member
         Ms. Peggy Gordon, Member
         Ms. Gloria J. Williams, Examiner (without vote)

All members voted to correct the records,  as  recommended.   The  following
documentary evidence was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 21 Oct 97, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, HQ ARPC/DPAD, dated 4 Feb 98.
   Exhibit D.  Applicant’s Response, dated 10 Mar 98
   Exhibit E.  Letter, HQ ARPC/JA, dated 30 Oct 98.
   Exhibit F.  Letters, AFBCMR, dated 16 Feb 98 and 16 Nov 98.
   Exhibit G.  Applicant’s Response, dated 28 Dec 98.






                                   DOUGLAS J. HEADY
                                   Panel Chair