RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  98-00355 (Case 2)
            INDEX CODE:  111.01, 131.00

            COUNSEL:  NONE


            HEARING DESIRED:  YES

_________________________________________________________________


APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

Her Officer Performance Report (OPR), rendered for the period 1April
1994 through 31 March 1995, be declared void and removed from her
records.
_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The contested report referenced improvement from a referral report
that has since been removed from her records.  The contested OPR is
the result of the hostile environment substantiated by SAF/IG.

The number of days of supervision was 212, not 250; and, the
accomplishments listed in Section IV (lines 5-9) occurred during the
previous period,

She did not receive the required change of reporting official (CRO)
evaluation after the 120 days of supervision from her rater, Colonel R-
--, who supervised her from 1 Apr 94 through 31Aug 94 (153 days).

In support of her request, applicant submits a revised application,
with a personal statement, copies of the contested OPR, the AFI 36-
2401 application and the decision, a statement from the rater, SAF/IGQ
addendum to the USAFE/IG report of investigation, and additional
documents associated with the issues cited in her contentions (Exhibit
A).
_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 30 Apr 87, the applicant was appointed a second lieutenant, Reserve
of the Air Force, and was voluntarily ordered to extended active duty
on 3 Nov 87.  She was integrated into the Regular Air Force on 31 Jan
94 and has been progressively promoted to the grade of captain,
effective and with a date of rank of 1Aug 91.  The following is a
resume of her OPR ratings subsequent to her promotion to that grade.

            Period Ending    Evaluation

              31 Mar 92      Meets Standards (MS)
              31 Mar 93           MS
            + 31 Mar 94      Not Rated - Report removed
                 By Order of The Chief of Staff
            * 31 Mar 95           MS
              31 Mar 96           MS
            # 31 Mar 97           MS
              31 Mar 98           MS
            ## 8 Dec 98           MS

+ Referral OPR - removed by the Evaluation Report Appeal Board (ERAB)
on 10 Oct 97.

*  Contested OPR.  Top report at the time she was considered (below-
the-promotion zone) and nonselected for promotion to major by the
CY96A Central Major Board, which convened on 4 Mar 96.

# Top report at the time she was considered (in-the-promotion zone)
and nonselected for promotion to major by the CY98B Central Major
Board, which convened on 6 Apr 98.

# Top report at the time she was considered (above-the-promotion zone)
and nonselected for promotion to major by the CY99A Central Major
Board, which convened on 8 Mar 99.

A similar appeal by the applicant, under Air Force Instruction (AFI)
36-2401, was considered and denied by the Evaluation Report Appeal
Board (ERAB) on 24 Dec 97.
_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The Directorate of Personnel Program Management, HQ AFPC/DPPPA,
reviewed this application and recommended denial.  DPPPA stated that
the applicant received a referral Officer Performance Report (OPR),
closing 31 Mar 94, that was subsequently removed by the Evaluation
Review Appeal Board (ERAB) as a result of substantiated sexual
harassment.

DPPPA indicated that Air Force policy is that an evaluation report is
accurate as written when it becomes a matter of record.  As to the
SAF/IG addendum provided, DPPPA stated that it does not, in any way,
relate to the contested report.

The applicant contends the rater from the contested report made two
statements in Sections VI and VII of the OPR that refer to the
previous referral OPR that was removed 10 Oct 97.  DPPPA disagrees
with the applicant's belief that the best means to resolve the issue
is to remove the entire report from her records.  The fact the rater
refused to comment on the removal of the report speaks volumes.  The
applicant served overseas in a Joint environment, that by United
States standards, could be considered by some to be prejudicial to
women.  The rater of the report had to make a tough judgment call when
rendering the contested report in order to preclude the applicant's
future placement in other Joint environments.  While the liberal Joint
environment could have been a factor in her poor performance, her
supervisor accurately portrayed her unsatisfactory duty performance
and inability to meet standards on her Mar 95 OPR.  To remove the OPR
from her record would be unfair to all the officers who "rose above"
their circumstances, and satisfactorily performed their duties while
serving in the same or similar Joint/international environments.
Removal of the contested report would make the applicant's record
inaccurate.

If the Board determines relief is appropriate, DPPPA recommended
deleting only the last line in Section VI, and the first line in
Section VII, as those are the only parts of the contested report that
could be misconstrued as an implication to the previous referral
report.  The statements, however, are not contrary to OPR guidance and
are legitimate assessments by the rating chain.  Since the applicant
has already appealed to the ERAB and had the previous report removed,
DPPPA contends the removal of this report would create an even larger
"gap" for which the applicant has no record of duty performance.

Based on the above, DPPPA recommended the applicant's request be
denied (Exhibit C).
_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant reviewed the advisory opinion and indicated that it is
inaccurate and incomplete.  It was after the contested report became a
matter of record that SAF/IGQ reviewed the case file and ultimately
released the SAF/IGQ addendum.  With regards to the SAF/IGQ addendum
relating to her case, Dr. C---'s letter provided evidence that the
lack of trust and communication, referred to in the cited addendum,
continued in the reporting period of the contested report.  The
doctor's letter, dated Jul 94, was written four months into the
reporting period of the contested report.

She provided evidence that the additional rater refused to assist her
with the referral report that preceded the contested report.  Although
she provided him with a copy of the SAF/IGQ addendum, he dismissed the
IG findings - his action violated AFPD 36-37.  As a result, she did
not ask for his support with the contested report.  She agrees that
the additional rater's refusal speaks volumes of his non-compliance
with Air Force policy.

She met all standards on the front of the contested report.  The
additional rater (Colonel T---) did not document unsatisfactory
performance, but referred to "marginal" standards.  Air Force policy
does not require any military member to perform duties under unlawful
discrimination.  As to the "gap" the removal of the report would leave
in her record, Air Force policy does not limit the extent to which its
members will neutralize the effects of unlawful discrimination.  She
requests the Board remove the contested report to neutralize the
effects of the hostile environment.

Copies of the applicant's response is appended at Exhibit E.
_________________________________________________________________

ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The Directorate of Personnel Program Management, HQ AFPC/DPPP, stated
that the applicant contends the number of days of supervision should
be "212" instead of "250;" however, she did not provide any official
documentation showing when supervision began for the new rater and
ended for the prior one.  With regard to the applicant's contentions
that Section IV of the contested report is inaccurate, DPPP indicated
that while the point papers provided are dated during the previous
reporting period, they do not prove she did not implement or improve
other software integration, or develop other new procedures during the
contested reporting period while assigned to the Mission Support Wing.
 In order to prove that a portion of the contested report is invalid,
the applicant must include support from her rater and subsequent
evaluators.  As to applicant's contention that she did not receive the
required change of reporting official (CRO) report after her rater's
120 days of supervision ended, the applicant has provided at least two
other organization charts, which differ from the one she now provides
in support of her contention.  In order to prove her supervisor
changed, the applicant must provide official documentation.  A change
in duty title or position does not prove her rater changed, only her
duty or position changed.

The applicant requests the additional rater's statement, "marginally
meets standard" be stricken from the contested report because he did
not meet the standard for equal opportunity.  Other than her own
opinion, the applicant has not provided any new evidence that her
rater was unable to render an unbiased evaluation of her duty
performance.  DPPP stated that the Addendum to the United States Air
Force Europe Report of Investigation Inspector General report refers
to the referral OPR only.  The investigation substantiated gender
discrimination existed at Gielenkirchen Air Base based on a hostile
work environment and the NATO chain of command was ineffective in
their leadership to affect changes in that work environment.  While
the addendum to the report of investigation states those factors
directly contributed to and precipitated the referral OPR, there is no
mention they were a factor in the applicant's subsequent evaluation
report.  Since the investigation did not substantiate bias on the part
of the Air Force rating officials for the contested OPR, DPPP
concludes the statement to be an accurate assessment of the
applicant's duty performance during the contested reporting period.

DPPP stated that the applicant did not provide any new documentation
to support her allegations, other than her own opinion.  The
memorandums from individuals outside her rating chain are not germane
to this appeal.

Based on the lack of evidence provided, DPPP recommended denial of the
applicant's request to change the days of supervision on the contested
OPR be denied, remove lines 5-9 of Section IV and the second line of
the additional rater's overall assessment in Section VII.  However,
DPPP would not be opposed to deleting the last line in Section VI and
the first line in Section VII of the contested OPR only, as they are
the only portions of the contested report that could be related to the
previous referral OPR.

A complete copy of this evaluation is appended at Exhibit F.
_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

She stated that during the contested 365 day period, she held two
separate positions, in two separate wings, with two separate raters.
However, the additional rater remained the constant figure throughout
the reporting period and she believes he influenced the four elements
of the contested report which are inaccurate and unfair.

As to the number of days of supervision, the contested report states
the rater supervised her 250 days.  This number indicated that he
began supervision on 24 Jul 94.  However, her assignment history
indicates she was transferred from the Missions Support Wing (MSW) to
the Training Wing on 1 Sep 94.  She cannot locate any official
documentation to explain this 38 day difference.  She simultaneously
changed duty titles, reporting officials and NATO wings.  She admits
her error in preparing organizational charts without properly
researching the exact dates.  If the change of reporting official
(CRO) took place on 1 Sep 94, as documented in her assignment history,
then the rater on the contested report only supervised her 212 days.
Either her performance report is erroneous or the assignment history
is erroneous.  She requests the AFBCMR correct one or the other to
ensure the accuracy of her records.

The rater of the contested report was provided erroneous information
concerning the accomplishments listed in Section IV (lines 5-9) of the
contested report.  She accomplished these efforts in Nov 93 which are
documented in point papers, dated Nov 93, and reported on in the
voided referral report.  The inclusion of these efforts on the
contested report violates AFI 36-2401.  She remained idle in the MSW,
except for three weeks of Switch Actions training; therefore, she
requests the AFBCMR delete these lines from the contested report.
DPPP indicated that they would not be opposed to the Board deleting
the last line of Section VI and the first line of Section VII on the
contested report; therefore, she requests that the AFBCMR delete these
lines from the contested report.  As to the second line in Section
VII, DPPP indicated that she has provided no new evidence to convince
them that her rater was unable to render an unbiased evaluation of her
duty performance.  To the contrary, the SAF/IGQ addendum provides
ample evidence regarding the biased actions of her rater.  From 12 Apr
through 19 Jul 94, USAFE/IG conducted an investigation and the rater
was one of the subjects of this investigation - 98 days during the
reporting period of the contested report.  The investigation report
was released in Dec 95 - 10 months into the reporting period of the
contested report.  The additional rater signed the referral report on
20 Jun 94 - 81 days into the reporting period of the contested report
closing 31 Mar 95.

Her current commander (Brigadier General M---) encouraged her to
pursue corrections of her records, including this appeal.  He stated
that as long as the contested report remained in her records, she
would not be selected for promotion or retained on active duty.

The referral report remained in her records from Jun 94 through Oct
97.  As a result, the referral report denied her the opportunity to
attend Squadron officer School (SOS) in residence, to receive a joint
decoration from NATO AWACS, and to compete for reassignment to a
headquarters unit.  Although the USAF removed the referral report from
her records, the USAF cannot neutralize its effects on these three
elements of professional development.  Unfortunately, promotion boards
consider these elements as selection criteria.  Likewise, her senior
rater was required to consider these elements, along with performance
reports, in making his promotion recommendation.  Sixty-five percent
of her peers in the Tanker Airlift Control Center received "definitely
promote."  The remaining thirty-five percent received "promote."

In Mar 99, she met the promotion board as an "above-the-zone"
candidate.  She is confident the marginal comment in the contested
report will ensure she is not one of the 4.7% selected.  Therefore,
she faces involuntary separation as a twice-passed-over captain as
mandated by Air Force policy.

She does not believe deleting the additional rater's remarks that she
"marginally meets standards" neutralizes that threat.  These deletions
will simply generate blank spaces on the already weak report.
Instead, she requests the AFBCMR remove the entire report from her
records.

She has provided an additional statement from a doctor who was
assigned to the 52 Fighter Wing - outside the command of Colonel T---
(the additional rater on the contested report).  She requests the
Board consider the doctor as an unbiased observer.

Applicant's complete response is appended 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.Sufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the
existence of probable error or injustice.  The circumstances related
by the applicant, and the supporting documents provided with this
appeal, are sufficient to cause doubt concerning the fairness and
accuracy of the contested report.  In this respect, we note that the
Inspector General (IG) investigation, which substantiated both gender
discrimination (hostile work environment and ineffective leadership)
at the applicant's duty station, was conducted during the same time
frame as the reporting period of the contested report.  We also noted
that the applicant's rating chain, additional rater and final
reviewer, were the same evaluators for both the referral report, which
was ultimately removed from her records, and the contested report.
Further, the Air Force office of primary responsibility, HQ AFPC/DPPP,
indicated they would not be opposed to altering the contested report
to preclude any association with the referral report.  Based on the
foregoing, a reasonable doubt exists concerning the accuracy and
fairness of the contested report.  Accordingly, we recommend that the
contested report be removed from the applicant's records and that she
be provided  promotion consideration to the grade of major by a
Special Selection Board (SSB) for the CY96A Major Board and for all
boards affected by removal of the report in question.
_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT:

The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force
relating to APPLICANT be corrected to show that the Officer
Performance Report, AF Form 707B, rendered for the period 1 April 1994
through 31 March 1995, be declared void and removed from her records.

It is further recommended that she be considered for promotion to the
grade of major by a Special Selection Board (SSB) for the Calendar
Year 1996A Central Major Board, which convened on 4March 1996, and for
any subsequent boards for which the OPR closing 31 March 1995 was a
matter of record.
_________________________________________________________________

The following members of the Board considered this application in
Executive Session on 8 July 1999, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

                  Ms. Charlene M. Bradley, Panel Chair
                  Ms. Sophie A. Clark, Member
              Mr. Joseph A. Roj, Member

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

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 19 Aug 98, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPPA, dated 17 Feb 98.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 16 Mar 98.
   Exhibit E.  Letters from applicant, dated 17 Mar 98, w/atchs,
               and 19 Aug 98, w/atchs.
   Exhibit F.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPP, dated 8 Mar 99.
   Exhibit G.  Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 8 Mar 99.
   Exhibit H.  Letters from applicant, dated 9 Apr 99, w/atchs,
               and 11 May 99, w/atch.




                                   CHARLENE M. BRADLEY
                                   Panel Chair



AFBCMR 98-00355




MEMORANDUM FOR THE CHIEF OF STAFF

      Having received and considered the recommendation of the Air
Force Board for Correction of Military Records and under the authority
of Section 1552, Title 10, United States Code (70A Stat 116), it is
directed that:

      The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air
Force relating to APPLICANT be corrected to show that the Officer
Performance Report, AF Form 707B, rendered for the period 1 April 1994
through 31March 1995, be, and hereby is, declared void and removed
from her records.

      It is further directed that she be considered for promotion to
the grade of major by a Special Selection Board (SSB) for the Calendar
Year 1996A Central Major Board, which convened on 4March 1996, and for
any subsequent boards for which the OPR closing 31 March 1995 was a
matter of record.




            JOE G. LINEBERGER
                                        Director
                                        Air Force Review Boards Agency