RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  98-00457

      XXXXXXX    COUNSEL:  NONE

      XXXXXXX    HEARING DESIRED:  YES



APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

1.    The Promotion Recommendation Form (PRF), AF  Form  709,  prepared  for
the Calendar Year 1996A (CY96A) Central Captain Selection Board, be  removed
from her records and replaced with  the  reaccomplished  PRF  reflecting  an
overall promotion recommendation of “Definitely Promote.”

2.    The Company Grade Officer Performance  Report  (OPR),  AF  Form  707B,
rendered for the period  12  February  1996  through  24  January  1997,  be
removed from her records.

3.    The PRF prepared for the CY97C  Central  Captain  Selection  Board  be
removed from her records.

4.    She be considered for promotion to  the  grade  of  major  by  Special
Selection Board (SSB) for the Calendar Year 1996  (CY96)  and  CY97  Central
Selection Board.


APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

She was not selected for promotion to the  grade  of  major  due  to  gender
discrimination,  sexual  harassment,  denial  of  due  process,  and  policy
violations  by  Air  Force  officials  during  an  Inspector  General   (IG)
investigation.

The applicant states the following:

      a.    The false allegations were rendered by  a  senior  NCO  and  his
subordinate who were unwilling to work for a female officer.   In  addition,
the allegations were in reaction to the command decision to remove  him  for
cause from his position.  Rather than file a complaint  against  the  senior
officers who were actually responsible for his removal, he  chose  her  -  a
female officer.

      b.    The  Inquiry  Officer  (IO)  and  his  team  became  party  with
complainants who were engaging in gender  discrimination  against  her,  and
lost their objectivity.

      c.    The Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for  Equal  Opportunity
(SAF/MIE) exercised command influence by requesting  the  Secretary  of  the
Air Force Inspector General (SAF/IGQ) continue oversight of the matter  with
an eye toward accommodating the complainant.

       d.     She  has  been  denied  access  to  the  record  of   the   IG
investigation.

      e.    The rater of the contested OPR failed to complete  the  required
performance feedback sessions and then made a false  official  statement  on
the report indicating the failure to provide feedback was due  to  a  change
in reporting officer.

      f. The Evaluation Report Appeals Board (ERAB) directed  her  promotion
consideration by Special Selection  Board  (SSB);  however,  her  Major  Air
Command (MAJCOM)  would  not  allow  the  SSB  to  consider  a  revised  PRF
reflecting a Definitely Promote (DP) recommendation.  As such, the  MAJCOM’s
decision blocked fair consideration of her record,  which  was  yet  another
violation of due process.

In support of her appeal, applicant submits  a  statement  from  the  senior
rater of the 0496A PRF and a reaccomplished PRF.

The applicant’s complete submission is attached at Exhibit A.


STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant is currently serving in the Air Force Reserve in the grade  of
captain.

On 25 January 1985, the applicant was commissioned a second  lieutenant  and
entered extended active duty.

The applicant was promoted to the grade of captain, effective and with  date
of rank of 25 January 1989.

In a letter to the Secretary of the Air Force, dated 12 February 1996,  MSgt
A--- alleged numerous  allegations  of  Social  Actions  policy  violations,
mismanagement and unethical behavior by the applicant.  It was  alleged  the
applicant gave MSgt A--- a poor Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) and  fired
him from his position in reprisal for his revealing or attempting to  reveal
the violations to the   Wing Commander, Vice Commander, and Senior  Enlisted
Advisor.  In addition, it was also alleged a base  human  relations  climate
in despair.  The complaint was forwarded to SAF/IGQ who tasked  Headquarters
Pacific Air Forces Command (PACAF) to investigate the complaint.

On 4  March  1996,  the  applicant  was  considered  and  not  selected  for
promotion by  the  CY96A  Central  Major  Selection  Board.   The  applicant
received an overall recommendation of Promote on the 0496A PRF.

On 24 June 1996, PACAF concluded the Inspector  General  (IG)  investigation
of  MSgt  A---‘s  allegations.   The  Report  of  Inquiry  (ROI)  found  the
allegations that the applicant acted unethically,  violated  Social  Actions
policies and reprised/retaliated against MSgt A--- were  substantiated.   It
was also found the applicant was not  managing  the  Equal  Opportunity  and
Treatment (EOT) program effectively.  The ROI recommended the  applicant  be
removed from the position of Chief, Social Actions.

The  applicant  submitted  an  appeal  under  AFI  36-2401,  requesting  the
Training Report (TR), closing 22 June 1994, be amended to  reflect  she  was
unable to complete her  program  due  to  her  academic  advisor  not  being
available for the planned  dissertation  defense  in  the  summer  of  1994,
rather than, Dissertation not completed due to early termination of  program
by AFMPC.  On 12 December 1996, the Evaluation Report Appeals  Board  (ERAB)
approved applicant’s request.  In addition, the  Chief,  Promotion  Division
(AFPC/DPPPAB),  approved  reconsideration  for  promotion   by   a   Special
Selection Board (SSB) for the CY96A board.

On 25 July 1996, the applicant filed a  complaint  with  the  Department  of
Defense  Inspector  General  (DoD/IG)  alleging  violation  of  due  process
violations during the SAF/IG investigation.

On 19 May 1997, the applicant was considered and not selected for  promotion
to the grade of major by an SSB for the CY96A board.

The applicant obtained support from the senior rater of the  0496A  PRF  and
submitted an appeal under  AFI  36-2401,  requesting  a  revised  0496A  PRF
reflecting an upgraded  overall  recommendation  of  Definitely  Promote  be
filed in his records.

On 6 January 1998, the Commander PACAF advised the Commander  AFPC  that  as
president of the CY96A MLRB, he did not concur with the  revised  Definitely
Promote.

On 9 January 1998, the ERAB declined to formally consider  her  request  and
returned it without action.  The ERAB indicated they were not  empowered  to
approve her request without MLR president  support,  which  he  declined  to
give.

On 2 February 1998, the DoD/IG  advised  the  applicant  that  she  did  not
provide information regarding her contention that she has  suffered  further
victimization and reprisal.

Applicant was considered and not selected for  promotion  to  the  grade  of
major by the CY96A and CY97C Selection Boards.

On 28 February 1998, the applicant was involuntarily  discharged  under  the
provisions of AFI 36-3207,  paragraph  3.5  (Involuntary  Separated  due  to
Twice Nonselected for Promotion).

A resume of applicant performance reports, since 1989, follows:

     PERIOD ENDING            EVALUATION OF POTENTIAL

       25 Mar 89                Meets Standards (MS)
       25 Mar 90                        MS
       25 Mar 91                        MS
       19 Aug 92                Training Report (TR)
       19 Aug 93                        TR
     # 22 Jun 94                        TR
       10 Mar 95                        MS
     * 11 Feb 96                        MS
    ** 24 Jan 97                        MS
        1 Jun 97                        MS

# TR amended by ERBA

* Top report reviewed by the CY96A board

** Contested OPR and top report reviewed by the CY97C board


AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The Senior Attorney-Advisor, AFPC/JA, reviewed the  application  and  states
the following:

      a.    In accordance with  appeal  procedures,  the  senior  rater  and
Management Level Review Board (MLRB) president are required to  support  the
upgrade of a PRF.  Since the applicant has not  obtained  support  from  the
MLRB president,  they  recommend  denial  of  her  request  to  upgrade  the
contested PRF.

      b.    It was not discrimination,  sexual  harassment,  denial  of  due
process, or policy  violations,  which  formed  the  basis  for  the  SAF/IG
findings.  To the contrary, it  was  deficiencies  in  her  judgment  and  a
failure to properly carry out her duties.  The actual act of  discrimination
and harassment applicant complains of is the  filing  of  the  IG  complaint
against her, not the resulting OPR and PRF.  The fact she characterizes  the
complaint as a form of discrimination and harassment does not transform  her
comments during the course of the investigation into privileged
communications, since to so characterize them would not  serve  the  obvious
purpose for having privileged communications, which is  to  encourage  those
persons discriminated against or sexually harassed, to come forward.

      c.    They do not believe  applicant  has  established  she  made  any
protected  communications  to  the  DOD/IG,  nor  has  she  established  she
suffered any retaliatory personnel action.  Although Air Force members  have
a  right  to  file  IG  complaints  and  without  fear  of  retaliation  and
communicate with the IG and members of  Congress,  the  actual  contents  of
such communications are not privileged simply because they are  made  to  an
IG and may be used to support unfavorable personnel action.

      d.    Applicant provides no evidence of any error in the PRF  or  OPR.
Furthermore, she has not provided convincing  evidence  the  SAF/IG  inquiry
was improperly conducted, and no evidence she  was  retaliated  against  for
making the DOD/IG complaint.

      e.    Applicant  takes  issue  with  the  fact  that  she  received  a
redacted copy of the IG  Inquiry  to  use  in  her  case.   They  note  that
requests by an applicant for copies of IG investigation  material  to  allow
him or her to respond to  command  actions,  taken  or  contemplated  to  be
taken, are not Official Use Requests.    Therefore,  they  recommend  denial
of her requests.  Requests such as  the  applicant’s  are  treated  as  FOIA
requests, and almost always result in  the  release  of  substantially  less
information than would otherwise be released to a commander in  response  to
an Official Use Request.  In their opinion,  applicant’s  comments  indicate
she was provided with the appropriate redacted copy of the IG Inquiry.   The
argument she provided under Tab 3, as well as  the  correspondence  relating
to her request for  information,  does  not  establish  she  was  improperly
denied any documentation relating to her.  In fact, at  each  stage  of  her
requests for information, the responsible agencies explained to her the  law
which applied to her requests, as well as the application of any  exemptions
to release of  certain  records.   In  their  review  of  the  documentation
submitted by applicant, they discerned no errors concerning the  release  of
information to her.  Her complaint seems to be that she did  not  receive  a
complete unredacted copy of the ROI along with all  accompanying  notes  and
memoranda (which she requested), rather than not receiving  those  materials
she was legally entitled to.  They  recommend  denial  of  the  application,
since no error or injustice has been established warranting relief.

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  it  is
inaccurate, contains fallacious  reasoning,  and  is  defamatory.   In  this
respect, the applicant states the following:

      a.    AFPC/JA provides  no  response  to  her  allegations  of  gender
discrimination and sexual harassment.

       b.      The   IG   investigation   misrepresented   unspecified   and
unsubstantiated allegations as fact, and formed the basis for  the  negative
statements on the  OPR  and  PRF.   The  individual  that  filed  an  SAF/IG
complaint against her, did so in retaliation for having  been  removed  from
his position by her upon the direction of her senior officials.

      c.    AFPC/JA misleads the Board by  suggesting  that  she  be  denied
information under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA),  when  her  request
was, in fact, a request for an unredacted copy of all information  contained
in the record under the Privacy Act.  The fact the Air  Force  has  admitted
she was the subject of an investigation, invalidates  their  contention  the
SAF/IG Inquiry is not part of her record.

      d.    As to her lack  of  support  from  the  MLR/MLEB  president,  he
became a party to violations of Titles  V,  VII,  and  X,  by  refusing  his
support for the PRF.  In spite of the fact that  he  was  only  supposed  to
review  her  outstanding  record  of  performance  prior   to   the   SAF/IG
investigation.

      e.    AFPC/JA denies that she made a protected  communication  to  the
DoD/IG because she did not make an original complaint and  merely  responded
to a complaint made by another Air Force  member.   However,  her  complaint
was  original  insofar  as  it   alleged   gender   discrimination,   sexual
harassment, denial of due process, and policy violations during  the  course
of, and following the SAF/IG investigation.

      f.    AFPC/JA also  denies  that  she  has  suffered  any  retaliatory
personnel action; however, the failure of her senior officials to  favorably
support the reaccomplished PRF, the negative statements she received on  her
OPR, the lackluster PRF for 0497C, and finally  her  involuntary  separation
from the Air Force, clearly constitute retaliatory personnel actions.

The applicant’s complete response is attached at Exhibit H.


ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The Senior Attorney-Advisor, AFPC/JA, reviewed the  application  and  states
the following:

      a.    After considering her comments in light  of  her  record,  which
they previously examined, they again conclude she has failed to  established
any error or injustice warranting relief.

      b.    After reviewing the Report of Inquiry and the  applicant’s  very
same allegations of gender discrimination and sexual  harassment,  in  their
opinion, it was deficiencies in  applicant’s  judgment,  and  a  failure  to
properly carry out her duties, which formed the basis for the findings  made
by the SAF/IG.

      c.    Although she complains she was entitled to an  unredacted  copy,
she received that information which she was legally entitled  to  receive  -
nothing more - nothing less.

      d.    The bottom line is applicant does not like the fact the  inquiry
made findings that were  inconsistent  with  her  position.   Likewise,  the
record contains no indication that any improper use was made of the ROI.

      e.    Her statements were not protected and could  therefore  be  used
to support unfavorable personnel actions.  The  actions  taken  against  her
were justified and appropriate under  the  circumstances.   Therefore,  they
recommend denial of her requests.

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

The  Chief,  Evaluation   Programs   Branch,   AFPC/DPPPE,   reviewed   this
application and states that although  the  applicant  has  provided  support
from the senior rater, she provide no support  from  the  MLR  president  to
warrant upgrading the PRF.  In addition, the  applicant  provides  no  proof
that an error or injustice has occurred.

In regard to the contested OPR, AFPC/DPPPE, states  that  they  concur  with
AFPC/JA that her comments made during  the  IG  inquiry  could  be  used  in
preparing these documents.  Even if this were not the  case,  the  applicant
does not show any evidence that information from the  inquiry  was  actually
used during the preparation of the OPR or PRF.   Therefore,  they  recommend
denial of her requests.

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

The Chief, Appeals and SSB Branch, AFPC/DPPPAB,  reviewed  this  application
and states that they accept the findings of AFPC/JA  and  AFPC/DPPPE.   They
note that applicant does not state whether she requested a feedback  session
from her rater, nor does she state she notified the  rater  or  the  rater’s
rater when a required feedback session did not take  place.   Regardless,  a
rater’s failure to conduct a required or  requested  feedback  session  does
not, by itself, invalidate an OPR.  Based on  the  evidence  provided,  they
recommend denial of applicant’s requests.

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


APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant reviewed the Air Force evaluations  and  states  that  AFPC/JA
persists in making defamatory comments rather  than  providing  a  reasoned,
point by point, refutation to her testimony.  They continue  to  provide  no
response to her allegations of gender discrimination and sexual  harassment,
as well as her allegations relating to denial  of  due  process  and  policy
violations.  AFPC/JA has failed to  substantiate  its  conclusion  that  the
actions taken against her were justified and appropriate.

A complete copy of applicant’s response is attached at Exhibit N.


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. After reviewing  the  evidence  of
record and noting the applicant’s contentions, the majority of the Board  is
not persuaded that the applicant’s records are either in  error  or  unjust.
The applicant contends that she was not selected for promotion to the  grade
of major due to gender discrimination,  sexual  harassment,  denial  of  due
process,  and  policy  violations  by  Air  Force  officials  during  an  IG
investigation.  In  support  of  her  request,  the  applicant  provides   a
statement from the senior rater of the contested  PRF  indicating  that  had
the negative comments (now voided from the TR) not been in  her  records  at
the time she competed for a  definitely  promote  (DP)  recommendation,  she
could have earned a DP recommendation during the MLRB  that  considered  all
officers
eligible for carry-over DP recommendations.  However, the senior rater  does
not state the applicant would have received one of his DP  allocations.   To
the contrary, the senior rater states that it  would  be  inappropriate  for
him to make judgement  on  the  MLRB’s  outcome,  based  on  a  changed  TR.
Furthermore, the MLRB president has not concurred with the upgrading of  the
contested  PRF.  The  applicant  also  contends  the  SAF/IG   inquiry   was
improperly conducted, and she was retaliated against for filing  the  DOD/IG
complaint.  However, she has  failed  to  provide  documentary  evidence  to
support these contentions.  The SAF/IG thoroughly  investigated  allegations
that applicant acted unethically,   violated  Social  Actions  policies  and
reprised/retaliated  against  a  subordinate  and  found   the   allegations
substantiated.  There  is  no  showing  the  investigation  was   improperly
conducted. In addition, the applicant has not provided  sufficient  evidence
to substantiate that she was the victim of reprisal for  making  the  DOD/IG
complaint.  Therefore, in  the  absence  of  evidence  to  the  contrary,  a
majority of the Board finds 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 issue(s) involved.  Therefore,  the  request
for a hearing is not favorably considered.


RECOMMENDATION OF THE BOARD:

A majority of the Board 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 14 September 1999, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

                 Mr. Thomas S. Markiewicz, Panel Chair
                 Mr. Walter J. Hosey, Member
                 Mr. Patrick R. Wheeler, Member

By majority vote, the Board recommended  denial  of  the  application.   Mr.
Markiewicz abstained from voting.  The following  documentary  evidence  was
considered:

      Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 16 Feb 98, w/atchs.
      Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
      Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/JA, dated 3 Jun 98.
      Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 22 Jun 98.
      Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 2 Jul 98.
      Exhibit F.  Letter, Applicant, undated.
      Exhibit G.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 31 Jul 98.
      Exhibit H.  Letter, Applicant, dated 1 Oct 98.
      Exhibit I.  Letter, Sen. Inouye, dated 9 Oct 98, w/atch.
      Exhibit J.  Letter, Sen. Mink, dated 9 Nov 98, w/atch.
      Exhibit K.  Letter, AFPC/JA, dated 29 Mar 99.
      Exhibit L.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPE, dated 30 Mar 99.
      Exhibit M.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPAB, dated 11 May 99.
      Exhibit N.  Letter, Applicant, dated 22 Jun 99.
      Exhibit O.  Letter, Sen. Mink, dated 23 Aug 99, w/atch.






            Panel Chair



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

SUBJECT:    AFBCMR Application of XXXXX, XXXXXX

      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