RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  98-02041
                             INDEX CODE: 111.02, 107.00

      XXXXX      COUNSEL:  None

      XXXXXX           HEARING DESIRED:  No



_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

1.     The  Enlisted  Performance  Report  (EPR)  rendered  for  the  period
10 August 1996 through 13 April 1997 be amended to reflect  a  senior  rater
endorsement.

2.    She be awarded the Air Force Achievement Medal (AFAM) with Second  Oak
Leaf Cluster (AFAM 2 OLC), and Third Oak Leaf Cluster (AFAM 3 OLC).

3.    She be awarded the Meritorious  Service  Medal  with  First  Oak  Leaf
Cluster (MSM 1 OLC).

4.    She be provided supplemental promotion consideration to the  grade  of
senior master sergeant for cycle 98E8.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The  findings  of  the           Air   Force   Inspector   General   (AF/IG)
Investigation,  dated  7  May  1998,  denoted  in  the  Summary  Report   of
Investigation a preponderance of the  evidence  clearly  supports  the  fact
that an injustice has been committed.   Three  allegations  were  thoroughly
reviewed  and  substantiated:  (1)  The  allegation  of  unfair  or   unjust
treatment by the squadron  commander,  (2)  the  allegation  of  sexual  and
racial discrimination by the supply commander; and  (3)  the  allegation  of
reprisal by the squadron commander for  making  a  protected  communication.
In conclusion,  non-recommendation  for  senior  rater  endorsement  by  the
supply  commander  who  was  using  inaccurate  information  regarding  duty
performance.

In support of the appeal, applicant submits the   AF/IG  Summary  Report  of
Investigations (SROIs), EPR closing  13  April  1997,  proposed  MSM  1  OLC
citation, and proposed AFAM 2OLC and 3 OLC citations.

Applicant's complete submission is attached at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant is currently serving in the Regular Air Force in the grade  of
master sergeant.

Applicant was assigned to the   Supply Squadron,   ,   ,  from  9  September
1995 to 13 April 1997.

Applicant participated in Operations QUICK TRANSIT I and  QUICK  TRANSIT  II
from 17 September 1996 to 22 October 1996.  She  also  participated  in  the
High Priority Mission Support Kit tasking from 23 October 1996 to 1  January
1997.   The  applicant  was  not  recommended  for   any   decorations   for
participation in these taskings.

Applicant, at her request, was reassigned  Permanent  Change  of  Assignment
(PCA) to the   Wing Civil Engineering Squadron  from  14  April  1997  to  8
March 1998.  At the  time  of  her  transfer,  applicant's  supply  squadron
commander considered her  for  a  mid-tour  medal  for  her  tenure  in  his
squadron, but ultimately did not recommend her for any such decoration.

Applicant received no decorations  from  her  assignment  with  the   Supply
Squadron, but did receive an end of tour MSM covering  her  entire  tour  at
  - 9 September 1995 to 8 March 1998.

Applicant's second and final EPR from the    Wing Supply Squadron, dated  13
April 1997, received deputy senior level  endorsement  versus  senior  level
endorsement.

EPR profile since 1995 reflects the following:

      PERIOD ENDING    EVALUATION OF POTENTIAL

            09 Aug 95        5
            09 Aug 96        5
    * 13 Apr 97        5
            06 Feb 98        5

*  Contested report.

A copy of a Report of Investigation prepared by  the    Wing  IG,  dated  11
December 1997, regarding allegations  of  unfair/unjust  treatment,  blatant
favoritism, sex and racial discrimination, no or  untimely  action  relating
to unprofessional relationships and reprisal within the    Supply  Squadron,
 ; a copy of the  AF/JA Legal Review of IG Complaint,  dated  7 April  1998;
and a copy of the two Summary  Report  of  Investigation  conducted  by  the
AF/IG dated 7 May 1998 and 7 July 1998,  regarding  applicant's  allegations
of reprisal, unfair  and  unjust  treatment,  unprofessional  relationships,
favoritism and sex and racial discrimination within the    Supply  Squadron,
, are attached at Exhibit M.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The  Chief,  Promotion,  Evaluation  and  Recognition  Div,  Directorate  of
Personnel Program  Management,  AFPC/DPPP,  reviewed  this  application  and
states that the applicant has  failed  to  provide  any  information/support
from the rating chain on the contested EPR.  In the absence  of  information
from her evaluators, official substantiation of error or injustice from  the
IG or Social Actions (SA) is appropriate.  The applicant included two  SROIs
from the   AF/IG dated 7 May 1998 and 7 July 1998.  However, the  SROIs  did
not provide enough detailed information to convince them  that  the  EPR  is
inaccurate.  They, therefore, requested  a  copy  of  the  IG  records  from
SAF/IGQ.   The  applicant's  contention  that  the  contested   report   was
downgraded because she  made  a  protected  disclosure  is  unfounded.   The
investigating officer concluded that the criteria her  commander  considered
before recommending an individual for senior rater endorsement  (exceptional
job performance, leadership by example, being involved  in  the    community
and      Supply Squadron and  being  a  role  model  for  young  folks)  was
clearly known in the squadron and by individuals  within  the  organization.
In this instance, the applicant did not meet the  commander's  criteria  for
senior rater endorsement.  Her commander's philosophy was,  "If  I  write  a
strong report and stop it (the EPR) there,  I  don't  end  their  career,  I
delay their promotion. . . . My intent was not to end  [applicant's]  career
but to send her a message that said she needs to be more involved  and  more
of a leader in order to have a prosperous career in the Air  Force."   Based
on the Acid Test for Reprisal, the  IG   Report  of  Investigation  did  not
substantiate the applicant's reprisal  allegation.   The  investigator  also
determined the applicant had received feedback prior  to  the  rendering  of
the report from both her rater and indorser.  Therefore, she  was  aware  of
her evaluator's expectations of her duty performance and  her  deficiencies.
The fact the applicant had asked her former rater (who departed  in  January
1997) to write her EPR prior to his departure (she did not think her new
rater was going to be fair) also supports the fact that she knew there  were
some  perceptions  about  her  performance  that  were  not  positive.    In
conclusion, the evidence in the IG report did not  support  the  applicant's
allegation of unfair and unjust treatment with [indorser]  basing  his  non-
recommendation  for  senior  rater  endorsement  on   allegedly   inaccurate
negative information concerning her duty performance.  Based on the lack  of
evidence provided, they recommend denial of applicant's request.

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

The  Chief,  Recognition   Programs   Branch,   Promotion,   Evaluation,   &
Recognition Division, AFPC/DPPPR, also reviewed this application and  states
that the applicant is not considered eligible for  award  of  the  AFAM  for
participation in Operation QUICK TRANSIT or in  the  High  Priority  Mission
Support Kit tasking as she did not provide  documentation  showing  she  met
the local requirements for award of either  decoration.   The  applicant  is
not considered eligible for  award  of  an  additional  decoration  for  her
assignment with the   Supply Squadron as she did not  provide  documentation
showing she met the local requirements for a PCA decoration.  The  applicant
did  not  exhaust  all  administrative   channels   before   submitting   an
application to the AFBCMR; she provided no documentation showing  a  request
for reconsideration for any of the decorations was submitted  to  the  final
approval/disapproval authority.  However, the citation for the MSM  received
should  have  included  her  assignment  to  the    Supply  Squadron.   They
recommend disapproval  of  (1)  award  of  the  AFAM  2OLC  for  outstanding
achievement for the  period  17 September  1996  to  22  October  1996,  for
support of Operations QUICK TRANSIT I and QUICK TRANSIT II.   (2)  Award  of
the AFAM 3 OLC for outstanding achievement for the period  23  October  1996
to 1 January 1997, for the High Priority Mission Support Kit tasking.   They
recommend approval of correction of  the  MSM  1  OLC  citation  to  include
assignment/duties with the   Supply Squadron, with  the  period  covered  to
remain as 9 September 1995 to 8 March 1998.

A complete copy of their evaluation is attached at Exhibit D.

The Chief, Inquiries/AFBCMR Section, Enlisted Promotion &  Mil  Testing  Br,
AFPC/DPPPWB, also reviewed this  application  and  states  that  should  the
Board  void  the  contested  report  in  its  entirety,  upgrade  the  final
evaluator block to the senior rater, or make any other  significant  change,
providing the  applicant  is  otherwise  eligible,  the  applicant  will  be
entitled to  supplemental  promotion  consideration  commencing  with  cycle
98E8.

AFPC/DPPWB further states that it  is  noted  that  the  Office  of  Primary
Responsibility for Air Force Decorations  (AFPC/DPPPRA)  has  reviewed  this
case and  recommended  the  applicant's  request  concerning  the  AFAMs  be
denied.  They defer to their recommendation.  As for the recommendation  for
correction to the
MSM 3 OLC citation, to include assignment/duties with the   Supply  Squadron
(with the period covered to remain as 9 September  1995  to  8  March  1998)
this correction would entitle her to supplemental promotion consideration.

In summary, should the AFBCMR upgrade Block 8 of her  EPR  closing  13 April
1997, void the report  in  its  entirety,  or  make  any  other  significant
change,  the  applicant  will  be   entitled   to   supplemental   promotion
consideration beginning with cycle 98E8.
Should the applicant be authorized any decorations by the AFBCMR, once  this
action is finalized, a determination can be made  as  to  what  supplemental
promotion consideration she may be entitled.

A complete copy of their evaluation is attached at Exhibit E.

The Staff Judge Advocate, AFPC/JA,  reviewed  this  application  and  states
that  they  have  found  several  errors  of  law.   First,   the   Military
Whistleblowers Protection Act was violated in the spring of  1997  when  the
applicant's commander non-recommended her for a PCA medal  in  reprisal  for
her  protected  communications  with  the  logistics  group  commander.   As
substantiated by both the May 1998 and July 1998  Report  of  Investigations
(ROIs), the applicant was on track to receive either an MSM or AFCM for  her
tenure in the  supply  squadron  upon  her  PCA  to  the  civil  engineering
squadron until she discussed her April 1997 EPR endorsement issue  with  the
group commander in June 1997.  Her squadron commander then pulled her  medal
recommendation   package   under   circumstances   that   indicate,   by   a
preponderance of evidence,  that  it  was  in  reprisal  for  her  protected
communication.

However, HQ AFPC/DPI, in its advisory, states that applicant should  not  be
considered eligible for  award  of  this  decoration  because  she  did  not
provide  documentation  showing  she  met  local   requirements   for   such
decoration.  She obviously did meet such criteria prior to the  reprisal  at
least for an AFCM, since a citation was written and submitted by her  supply
squadron commander to the group level for approval on  28  May  1997.   This
proposed MSM, then downgraded  by  the  group  commander  to  an  AFCM,  was
returned  to  the  squadron  for  requisite  modifications,  but  was  never
resubmitted  by  applicant's  squadron  commander,  in  reprisal   for   the
protected  communication  --  as  substantiated  by           AF/IG,   whose
findings constitute the final SAF/IG conclusion.  It is  doubtful  that  the
group commander would have sent the original MSM back to  the  squadron  for
resubmittal as an AFCM if he felt applicant did not meet the local  criteria
for said award.  In fact, though the squadron commander maintained  that  it
was the lack of senior  endorsement  on  applicant's  April  1997  EPR  that
prompted his decision  to  not  recommend  her  for  any  award,  the  group
commander expressly dismissed this rationale, instead stating that while  an
MSM was not warranted, an AFCM was very appropriate for a  MSgt  PCA'ing  at
the 18-month point.

In  remedy  for  this  illegal  reprisal  action,  they  recommend  granting
applicant's request for a decoration exclusively  for  the  period  she  was
assigned to the      Supply Squadron, 9 September  1995  to  1  April  1997.
However, they recommend that an AFCM,  instead  of  the  requested  MSM,  be
granted.  This is the appropriate medal that the records demonstrate,  by  a
preponderance of evidence, would have been awarded, but  for  the  violation
of 10 USC 1034.

Concerning applicant's  requests  for  the  award  of  two  decorations  for
particular  taskings,  they  again  find  legal  error  in  the  failure  of
applicant's commander to award these medals.   Specifically,  applicant  was
not recommended for  an  AFAM  for  her  participation  in  Operation  QUICK
TRANSIT,  phases  I  and  II,  by  her  squadron  commander,  nor  for   her
involvement in the High Priority Mission Support Kit tasking,  although  the
preponderance of the evidence demonstrates that she met all  local  criteria
for both decorations.

The final IG determination properly concluded that  applicant  was  unfairly
and unjustly denied the opportunity to be nominated  and  considered  for  a
medal  for  her  contributions  to  Operations  QUICK  TRANSIT  I  and   II.
Specifically, applicant's commander utilized  erroneous  medal  criteria  to
assess her eligibility for said medal, in violation of AFI 36-2803, The  Air
Force Awards and Decorations Program,  chapter  2,  paragraph  2.2.6.   This
guidance provides that each decoration has proper standards that define  the
degree and magnitude of service worthy for its  award,  and  such  standards
were not followed in this case.  Instead of employing the group  commander's
criteria for  the  award  of  AFAMs,  applicant's  squadron  commander  used
different  criteria  when  considering  applicant   for   said   decoration.
Therefore, contrary to DPPPR's opinion that applicant did  not  provide  the
local criteria for the award and thus should be  denied,  they  concur  with
the  AF/IG conclusion that applicant would have earned this  decoration  had
her commander followed the established criteria.  Hence, in  remedy  of  the
violation of AFI 36-2803, they recommend granting her request for the  award
of the AFAM 2OLC for outstanding achievement for  the  period  17  September
1996 - 22 October 1996, for support of Operations QUICK TRANSIT I and II.

They also find legal error  in  the  failure  of  applicant's  commander  to
consider her for the award of an AFAM for  her  participation  in  the  High
Priority Mission Support Kit tasking.  Specifically, AFI  36-23803,  chapter
2, paragraph 2.2.7, directs all  recommending  officials  to  "evaluate  all
related facts regarding the service of any  person  before  recommending  or
awarding a decoration."   In  this  case,  the  evidence  demonstrates  that
applicant's  commander  failed  to  do  so  --  he  admitted  not  realizing
applicant's involvement in the tasking prior to reviewing her 13 April  1997
EPR.  Had he discerned her role in this  tasking  earlier,  and  recommended
applicant for such a medal, all those interviewed stated she would have  met
all established criteria.  They, therefore, recommend, as a remedy for  this
error, that the Board grant applicant's request for the award of the AFAM  3
OLC for outstanding achievement for the period 23 October 1996 -  1  January
1997, for the High Priority Mission Support Kit tasking.

Turning to the final allegation in applicant's case,  it  is  their  opinion
that the applicant's rater violated AFI  36-2403,  the  Enlisted  Evaluation
System, when he withheld senior rater endorsement from  her  13  April  1997
EPR.  The evidence sufficiently demonstrates  that  her  commander  utilized
inaccurate information regarding her duty  performance  when  preparing  the
evaluation,  and  specifically  when  considering  her  for   senior   level
endorsement, as substantiated by the   AF/IG.  Testimony showed  that  group
endorsement standards, the performance appraisal by the  chain  of  command,
and conflicting recommendations to the final evaluator, (the logistic  group
commander), differed unreasonably to the extent that the applicant  was  not
fairly considered for the senior rater endorsement.

Upon reviewing HQ AFPC/DPPP's advisory, they disagree with their  conclusion
that  the  evidence  does  not  support  the  final  IG  determination  that
applicant was wronged because her squadron commander unfairly  and  unjustly
cited inaccurate information when  non-recommending  her  for  senior  rater
endorsement.  This advisory inaccurately states the applicant  alleged  that
the non-recommendation was in reprisal for  protected  communications,  and,
therefore, incorrectly employs the acid  test  to  determine  its  validity.
However, this was not the allegation; rather, applicant charged  in  her  IG
complaint, and continues to maintain, and was proven correct  by  the  final
IG determination, that this action constituted unfair and unjust  treatment,
not that it was a reprisal.

Furthermore, although the normal standard of  review  for  the  validity  of
EPRs in  accordance  with  AFI  36-2401,  Correcting  Officer  and  Enlisted
Evaluation Reports, requires that the member produce  evidence  from  within
the reporting chain that the report was invalid  when  written,  application
of that standard in this case would be inappropriate as it  is  precisely  a
critical  rater  in  the  reporting   chain   who   acted   improperly,   as
substantiated  by  the  IG;  i.e.,  the  July   1998     AF/ROI   accurately
substantiates  applicant's  allegation  of  unfair  and   unjust   treatment
concerning the rendition of her contested report in the  fact  that  it  was
not forwarded for senior  level  endorsement.   They,  therefore,  recommend
granting applicant's requested relief to amend her  13  April  1997  EPR  to
reflect senior rater endorsement in remedy of this error.

Finally, they agree  with  HQ  AFPC/DPPPAB's  assessments  that  should  the
AFBCMR ultimately grant a  request  to  amend  the  13  April  1997  EPR  as
requested,  applicant  would   be   entitled   to   supplemental   promotion
consideration beginning with cycle 98E8.  Also, while the  authorization  of
additional  decorations  does  not  automatically  entitled   applicant   to
supplement  promotion  consideration,  such  consideration  would   not   be
inappropriate were the Board to authorize the recommended decorations.

As applicant has proven the existence  of  several  errors,  they  recommend
that appropriate relief be granted.  The  specific  relief  that  they  have
recommended flows directly from the decision  of           AF/IG  that  both
unjust treatment and reprisal occurred against the  applicant.   Since  both
AF/IG reports  are  legally  sufficient,  in  accordance  with  AFI  90-301,
Inspector   General   Complaints,   and   constitute   the   final    SAF/IG
determination,  they  find  their  conclusions  dispositive   in   providing
convincing evidence that  the  alleged  errors  did  in  fact  occur.   They
believe the relief recommended is an appropriate remedy.

A complete copy of their evaluation is attached at Exhibit F.

_________________________________________________________________

ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The Chief, AFBCMR Appeals and SSB Section, Directorate of Personnel  Program
Mgmt, AFPC/DPPPAB, reviewed this application and states that they noted  the
substantiated reprisal by the squadron commander and  understand  that  this
may have affected the applicant's EPR endorsement level.  They do not  know,
however, whether or  not  she  would  have  been  afforded  a  senior  rater
endorsement, as each senior rater makes the  final  determination  of  which
senior noncommissioned officers will get  his/her  endorsement.   Given  the
substantiated reprisal, she should be given the opportunity to  by-pass  the
squadron commander level and request support of the  senior  rater's  deputy
and the  senior  rater  for  a  higher  level  endorsement.   However,  this
endorsement  is  not  automatic.   Therefore,  it  is  incumbent  upon   the
applicant  to  provide  a  reaccomplished  report  with  the  signature  and
comments from the senior rater  who  would  have  signed  the  report.   The
report should include the exact same comments from her  previous  evaluators
and their signatures in sections V and VI.   The  applicant  would  need  to
contact the senior rater's deputy and  senior  rater  who  were  serving  in
those positions at the time the report was rendered and present  her  appeal
to them and request their support of her appeal.  It  would  be  helpful  to
the applicant's appeal if she could provide supporting documentation
from the senior rater as well  as  the  senior  rater's  deputy.   Once  the
applicant has secured this new documentation, they would not object  to  its
insertion into her selection record.

A complete copy of their evaluation is attached at Exhibit H.

The  Chief,  Recognition   Programs   Branch,   Promotion,   Evaluation,   &
Recognition Division, AFPC/DPPPR, reviewed this application and states  that
they  have  noted   the            AF   Summary   of   Investigation   (SOI)
substantiated  reprisal  by  the  member's  former  squadron  commander  and
understand  that  this  may   have   affected   the   applicant's   possible
recommendation  and  subsequent   approval   of   decorations   during   her
assignments at      Air Base, Turkey.   Given  the  substantiated  reprisal,
they agree she has met the basic awards and decorations criteria and  should
be given the  opportunity  to  by-pass  the  squadron  commander  level  and
request support of the remainder of her chain of command  for  any  possible
decorations.  However, since these decorations  are  not  automatic,  it  is
incumbent upon the applicant to provide the documentation to someone in  her
old chain of command recommending her  for  a  decoration  for  her  initial
assignment (     Supply Squadron) in Turkey as well as the  two  AFAMs.   To
ensure fairness, the applicant's medal  requests  should  be  evaluated  and
awarded based on their merit as they apply to all other service  members  in
similar  situations.   Hence,  the  award  approval  authorities   currently
assigned  to  the       Wing  at     should  evaluate  and   determine   the
appropriate awards,  even  if  they  were  not  assigned  during  the  award
periods.

There are, however, unknowns concerning the three medal  requests  indicated
by the applicant.  First, they do not know whether  the  MSM  would  be  the
appropriate decoration for the applicant's  first  assignment  (9  September
1995 - 1 April 1997) to the      Supply Squadron.  Determinations of  awards
are based on many factors, such as  performance  of  duty,  member's  grade,
level of responsibility and length of assignment.  It is  possible  that  an
MSM  might  not  be  warranted  for  such  a  short  period,  and  the  real
possibility of a downgrade to the AFCM exists.  It should be noted that  the
already awarded end of tour  MSM  covers  the  applicant's  entire  tour  (9
September 1995 - 31 May 1998) at     .  Should her [then] chain  of  command
determine that she is eligible for a separate  decoration  for  her  initial
assignment, the MSM would have to be revoked and a  new  recommendation  for
decoration package be resubmitted to include only her  second  assignment  (
  Civil Engineering Squadron) for the period 2 April 1997  -  31  May  1998.
With her second assignment being only 13  months  in  length,  they  further
believe the award of the MSM might not be deemed appropriate, based  on  all
criteria mentioned above.

Secondly, it is difficult to ascertain whether or not  the  applicant  would
have  been  recommended  and  approved  for  AFAMs  for   participation   in
Operations QUICK TRANSIT I and II, and for her
participation in the High Priority Mission Support Kit taskings.   Based  on
a lack of first hand knowledge and  conflicting  information  found  in  the
report  of  investigation,  they  are  unable  to  establish  her  level  of
participation.  In one of the cases, based on  the  evidence  provided,  she
may not have been eligible for one of the AFAMs based  on  her  not  meeting
local, squadron-level requirements,  such  as  length  of  participation  or
degree of participation.  They have no  first  hand  knowledge  that  others
were  included  or  excluded  based   on   any   local   or   squadron-level
requirements.  The applicant's level of participation must be determined  at
the local level so that proper and  appropriate  award  recommendations  are
made.   It  must  also  be  noted  that,  in  accordance   with   their   AF
Instructions, that they do not award more than one AFAM during  a  one  year
period except under extraordinary circumstances.  Once again, they have  not
been provided any examples of any extraordinary circumstances,  which  would
warrant award of two AFAMs in less than 5 months.

They  recommend  the  AFBCMR  direct  the  resubmission  of   any   or   all
recommendation  for  decoration   packages   and   the   appropriate   award
authorities at   , evaluate these packages on their  own  merit.   In  order
for this to be accomplished, the  applicant  needs  to  contact  her  former
supervisor(s)  and  present  her  requests  for  recommendation   decoration
packages  to  them.   These  recommendation  packages  should  be  processed
through the normal administrative channels of  the  wing,  with  the  caveat
that the time limit has been waived.  Only her  previous  chain  of  command
can determine whether or not she met the criteria for  the  two  achievement
medals and the level of  decorations  appropriate  for  her  accomplishments
while assigned to     .

A complete copy of their evaluation is attached at Exhibit I.

The Staff Judge Advocate, AFPC/JA,  reviewed  this  application  and  states
that they have found several issues that need to be addressed.   First,  the
Military Whistleblowers Protection Act was violated in the  spring  of  1997
when the applicant's commander  non-recommended  her  for  a  PCA  medal  in
reprisal  for  her  protected  communications  with  the   logistics   group
commander.  As substantiated by both the May 1998 and July  1998  Report  of
Investigations (ROIs), the applicant was on track to receive either  an  MSM
or AFCM for her tenure in the supply squadron upon  her  PCA  to  the  civil
engineering squadron until she discussed  her  April  1997  EPR  endorsement
issue with the group commander in June 1997.  Her  squadron  commander  then
pulled her medal recommendation package under circumstances  that  indicate,
by a preponderance of evidence, that it was in reprisal  for  her  protected
communication.

Notwithstanding, a member must be otherwise qualified for such an award,  to
include  meeting  all  legitimate  local  requirements  as  defined  in  the
governing instruction.  In this case, at first blush, there seems  to  be  a
question whether the applicant provided documentation showing she met  local
requirements for such a decoration.  In fact,  however,  she  obviously  did
meet such criteria prior to the reprisal, at least  for  an  AFCM,  since  a
citation was written and submitted by her supply squadron commander  to  the
group  level  for  approval  on  28  May  1997.   This  proposed  MSM,  then
downgraded by the group commander to an AFCM, was returned to  the  squadron
for requisite  modifications,  but  was  never  resubmitted  by  applicant's
squadron commander - this, in reprisal for the protected  communication  (as
substantiated by          AF/IG, whose findings constitute the final  SAF/IG
conclusion).  It is doubtful that the group commander would  have  sent  the
original MSM back to the squadron for resubmittal as an AFCM if he  believed
applicant did not meet the local criteria for said award.  In  fact,  though
the  squadron  commander  maintained  that  it  was  the  lack   of   senior
endorsement on the applicant's April 1997 EPR that prompted his decision  to
not recommend her for any award, the  group  commander  expressly  dismissed
this rationale, instead stating that while an  MSM  was  not  warranted,  an
AFCM was very appropriate for a master  sergeant  PCA'ing  at  the  18-month
point.

With respect to the  applicant's  request  for  an  MSM,  however,  the  two
AF/IG summary Reports of Investigation provide terse  statements  concerning
their findings, and without more, it  is  their  opinion  that  insufficient
evidence exists to warrant granting this part of  the  applicant's  request.
Moreover, applicant received an MSM at the end of her overall tour  covering
the entire period (August 1995 - March 1998) --  although  that  award  does
not mention her accomplishments  while  assigned  to  the  Supply  Squadron.
Under these circumstances, they believe applicant would  benefit  more  from
an overall end of tour  MSM  (modified  to  cover  accomplishment  from  the
entire period) than one or two AFCMs for the  same  period.   If  the  Board
were to agree, they would recommend against award of a  separate  medal  for
the 1995 - 1997 period in the Supply Squadron  and  instead  recommend  that
the citation for the end of tour MSM be amended, as appropriate, to  include
her accomplishments from those first two years.  As such, they fail  to  see
why this  decoration  would  need  to  be  resubmitted  to       for  a  new
determination as suggested by DPPPR.  In fact,  as  with  the  other  medals
discussed below, to resubmit the action  would  effectively  emasculate  the
      AF/IG findings that, but for the  unlawful  discrimination,  applicant
would have been awarded the medal(s) in question.

Concerning  the  applicant's  requests  for  the  award  of  two  additional
decorations for particular taskings, they again believe that  applicant  was
not afforded proper treatment.  Specifically, applicant was not  recommended
for an AFAM for her participation in Operation QUICK TRANSIT, phrases I  and
II by her squadron commander, nor was she recognized for her involvement  in
the High Priority Mission Support Kit tasking.

AFI 36-2803, The Air  Force  Awards  and  Decorations  Program,  chapter.  2
paragraph 2.2.6 provides  guidance  for  each  decoration  in  the  form  of
standards that define the degree and magnitude of  service  worthy  for  its
award.  While the instruction permits all commanders  (including  the  local
squadron  commander)   to   provide   additional   criteria   for   awarding
decorations, implicit in that  authority  is  that  the  criteria  represent
legitimate factors relevant to the award.  In this  case,  the  totality  of
the evidence reveals that the criteria  used  by  the  applicant's  squadron
commander were inappropriate.  In fact, the final  IG's  determination  that
applicant was unfairly and unjustly denied the opportunity to  be  nominated
and considered for  a  medal  for  her  contributions  to  Operations  QUICK
TRANSIT I  and  II  strongly  suggests  that  the  additional  criterion  of
physical labor was used  by  the  applicant's  commander  as  a  pretext  to
unfairly and unjustly deny appellant  the  award  in  question.   Therefore,
they concur with the          AF/IG conclusion  that  applicant  would  have
earned this decoration had her commander followed the  established  criteria
set by the AFI and group commander, and they recommend granting her  request
for the award of the AFAM 2OLC for outstanding achievement  for  the  period
17 September 1996 -  22  October  1996,  for  support  of  Operations  QUICK
TRANSIT I and QUICK TRANSIT II.

With respect to the award of an AFAM for participation in the High  Priority
Mission Support Kit  tasking,  AFI  36-2803,  chapter  2,  paragraph  2.2.7,
directs all recommending officials to "evaluate all related facts  regarding
the service of any person before recommending  or  awarding  a  decoration."
In this case, the evidence demonstrates that  applicant's  commander  failed
to do so --  he  admitted  not  realizing  appellant's  involvement  in  the
tasking prior to reviewing her 13 April 1997  EPR.   Had  he  discerned  her
role in this tasking earlier, and recommended applicant for  such  a  medal,
all those interviewed stated she would have met  all  established  criteria.
In fact, the first-level supervisor, who was responsible  for  the  original
submission of applicant's decoration  package  to  her  squadron  commander,
stated that applicant  would  have  received  the  medal  if  she  had  been
considered.  This would seem to suggest  that  the  commander's  failure  to
recommend  her  for  one  was  merely  a  pretext  to  relieve  him  of  the
responsibility for applicant's non-receipt of an earned medal.

Nevertheless, the burden of proving  error  before  this  Board  is  on  the
applicant, and there is conflicting testimony concerning  whether  applicant
actually asked her  supervisor  to  not  consider  her  for  award  of  this
decoration, because she wanted that information included,  instead,  on  her
departure decoration from the squadron.  While they  would  not  oppose  the
Board granting applicant's request for the award  of  the  AFAM  3  OLC  for
outstanding achievement for the period 23 October  1996  -  1 January  1997,
for the High Priority Mission Support Kit tasking, given the uncertainty  in
the evidence, it might  be  more  appropriate  to  simply  incorporate  this
information into the previously reference end of tour MSM.

Turning to the final allegation in applicant's case,  it  is  their  opinion
that the applicant's rater violated AFI  36-2403,  the  Enlisted  Evaluation
System, when he withheld senior rater endorsement from  her  13  April  1997
EPR.  The evidence sufficiently demonstrates  that  her  commander  utilized
inaccurate information regarding her duty  performance  when  preparing  the
evaluation,  and  specifically  when  considering  her  for   senior   level
endorsement, as substantiated by the          AF/IG.  Testimony showed  that
group endorsement standards, the  performance  appraisal  by  the  chain  of
command, and  conflicting  recommendations  to  the  final  evaluator,  (the
logistic group commander), differed unreasonably  to  the  extent  that  the
applicant was not fairly considered for the senior rater endorsement.

Although the normal standard of review for the validity of EPRs IAW AFI  36-
2401, Correcting Officer and Enlisted Evaluation Reports, requires that  the
member produce evidence from within the reporting chain that the report  was
invalid when written, application of that standard in  this  case  would  be
inappropriate as it is precisely a critical rater  in  the  reporting  chain
who acted improperly, as substantiated  by  the  IG;  i.e.,  the  July  1998
AF/ROI accurately substantiates applicant's allegation of unfair and  unjust
treatment concerning the rendition of her contested report in the fact  that
it was not  forwarded  for  senior  level  endorsement.   However,  at  this
juncture, without the concurrence of the senior rater  involved,  the  Board
is not  in  the  position  to  substitute  an  endorsement  and  thus  grant
applicant's requested relief.  To obtain  the  requested  relief,  applicant
will need to procure the senior rater's concurrence to change the report  as
proposed.  At that point, applicant  could  then  resubmit  her  request  to
insert a reaccomplished 13  April  1997  EPR  which  reflects  senior  rater
endorsement and, assuming adequate documentation, such  a  remedy  would  be
appropriate.

Finally, they agree  with  HQ  AFPC/DPPPAB's  assessments  that  should  the
AFBCMR ultimately grant a  request  to  amend  the  13  April  1997  EPR  as
requested,  applicant  would   be   entitled   to   supplemental   promotion
consideration beginning with cycle 98E8.  Also, while the  authorization  of
additional  decorations  does  not  automatically  entitled   applicant   to
supplement  promotion  consideration,  such  consideration  would   not   be
inappropriate were the Board to authorize the recommended decorations.

Consistent with the decision of          AF/IG that  both  unjust  treatment
and  reprisal  occurred  against  the   applicant,   they   recommend   that
appropriate  relief  as  outlined  herein  be  granted.    That   is,   that
applicant's  accomplishments  while  assigned  to  the  Supply  Squadron  at
be incorporated into the citation for her end  of  tour  MSM;  that  she  be
awarded an AFAM for the 17 September 1996 - 22 October 1996 QUICK TRANSIT  I
and II operations; and that her participation in the High  Priority  Mission
Support Kit tasking be included in the above referenced  MSM.   Her  request
for senior rater endorsement on the EPR should not be granted at this time.

A complete copy of their evaluation is attached at Exhibit J.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant reviewed the Air  Force  evaluations  and  provides  the  wing
commander’s concurrence of her request for senior rater indorsement.

The applicant’s complete response, with attachments, is attached at  Exhibit
L.


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  to  warrant  amending  the  MSM
citation to include the applicant’s assignment to the      Supply  Squadron,
awarding her the AFAM, Second and Third Oak Leaf Clusters  (AFAM,  2  OLC  &
AFAM 3 OLC), and promoting her to the grade of  senior  master  sergeant.  A
      Air Force  Inspector  General  Investigation  substantiated  that  the
applicant was treated unfairly and unjustly by her commander; the  commander
sexually and racially discriminated against her; and that the applicant  was
the victim of reprisal for making a protected communications  to  the  group
commander regarding her EPR.  After reviewing the  evidence  of  record,  we
believe the applicant has been the victim of one of the  most  reprehensible
forms of discrimination; i.e., reprisal. In this respect, we note that:

             a.    The  IG  substantiated  that  the  applicant’s  commander
unjustly   withheld   decorations   in   retaliation   for   her   protected
communications.   We  also  note  that  during  the  contested  period,  the
applicant was assigned to    and received an end-of tour  MSM  covering  her
entire tour.  However, the  MSM  citation  does  not  include  her  18-month
assignment with the      Supply Squadron.  In view of this, and  since  this
represents half of the period that she was awarded the MSM,  we  agree  with
the recommendation of the Staff Judge Advocate that  applicant’s  assignment
to the      Supply Squadron should be included  in  the  MSM  citation.   In
regard to the AFAM, 2 OLC, we note the IG  determined  the  applicant  would
have earned the  decoration  had  her  commander  followed  the  established
criteria set by the Air Force  Instruction  and  the  group  commander.   In
addition,  the  evidence  of  record  indicates  the   applicant   met   all
established criteria for award of the AFAM,  3  OLC,  and  would  have  been
approved for the decoration if she had been  considered.   In  view  of  the
above, we recommend the MSM citation be amended to  include  her  assignment
to the supply squadron, and she be awarded the AFAM, 2 OLC, and the AFAM,  3
OLC.  We also considered awarding the applicant  another  MSM  for  the  18-
month period she was assigned  to  the       Supply  Squadron;  however,  we
agree with the Staff Judge Advocate that applicant would benefit  more  from
an end-of-tour MSM covering the entire period she was assigned to      AB.

            b.   The  IG  has  also  substantiated  the  commander  utilized
inaccurate information  regarding  the  applicant’s  duty  performance  when
preparing  the  contested  report  and  considering  her  for  senior  level
endorsement. Furthermore, the Staff Judge  Advocate  has  stated  the  rater
violated AFI 36-2403, when he withheld senior  rater  indorsement  from  the
report. Given the substantiated reprisal, the  applicant  has  obtained  the
support of her former wing commander concurring with her request for  senior
level indorsement.  However, it is incumbent upon the applicant  to  provide
a reaccomplished report with the signature and comments of the senior  rater
who would have signed the report and the exact same comments and  signatures
of the previous evaluators.  Once  the  applicant  has  done  so,  the  BCMR
Appeals and  SSB  Section  has  indicated  they  would  not  object  to  its
insertion into her selection record.

      c.    Under normal  circumstances,  this  Board  would  recommend  the
member’s records  be  considered  for  promotion  through  the  supplemental
promotion process.  However, there are instances whereby  the  magnitude  of
the injustice is such that  it  can  only  be  rectified  by  a  Secretarial
directed promotion.  We believe this is such a case.   In  this  regard,  we
note that as stated above, the applicant has been through  two  separate  IG
investigations, and found to have been the victim of  reprisal,  and  racial
and sexual discrimination. The Air Force in some of their advisory  opinions
to this Board, are even requesting the applicant  obtain  support  from  the
rating  chain  on  the  EPR,  her  commander  concerning   the   decoration,
justification for the decorations, etc.  They write  these  advisories  with
full knowledge that two separate IG investigations concluded  that  she  was
the victim of reprisal and  was  fully  eligible  for  certain  decorations.
While  this  Board,  through  its  above  recommendation,  can  provide  the
applicant with the decorations she fully deserves, without a  reaccomplished
EPR, we cannot correct the EPR senior indorsement issue.  Although  we  know
the applicant desires to have this issue put  behind  her,  she  must  again
spend her time and effort to obtain signatures from not  only  the  original
rating officials, but the  senior  rater  as  well.   We  note  that  during
promotion testing for cycle 98E8, the       Wg/IG  investigation  was  still
ongoing and the applicant certainly was not in the proper frame of  mind  to
prepare for promotion  testing  as  were  her  contemporaries.  We  have  to
commend the legal opinion provided by  the  Staff  Judge  Advocate  as  they
assessed the facts of the case and recommended, in  essence,  the  applicant
be provided the  relief  requested.   We  believe  that  had  the  applicant
requested direct promotion through the correction of records  process,  they
may have also recommended  favorable  action  on  this  issue.   Regardless,
after reviewing the evidence of record and noting the continuing effects  of
the commander’s egregious actions against  the  applicant,  we  believe  her
promotion to the grade of senior master sergeant,  as  if  selected  by  the
98E8 cycle will put this sad  state  of  affairs  to  rest  and  permit  the
applicant to continue her  Air  Force  career  unimpeded  by  the  egregious
injustices perpetuated against her by her squadron commander.


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 awarded the Air  Force  Achievement  Medal,  Second  Oak
Leaf Cluster, for outstanding achievement during  the  period  17  September
1996 to 22 October 1996.

      b.    She was awarded the Air Force Achievement Medal, Third Oak  Leaf
Cluster, for outstanding achievement during the period 8 September  1996  to
1 January 1997.

      c.    The citation to accompany the award of the  Meritorious  Service
Medal, First Oak Leaf Cluster, be amended to include the  sentence,  “During
this period, Sergeant   took  control  and  monitored  the  unit’s  logistic
support for Operation  RESTORE  HOPE  and  quickly  established  a  $250,000
requisition account for 7,000 line items needed  to  meet  the  initial  bed
down requirements.” before the second to the last sentence.

      d.    She was  promoted  to  the  grade  of  senior  master  sergeant,
effective and with date of rank of 1 July 1998.


The following members of the Board considered this application in  Executive
Session on 9 November 1999, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

      Panel Chair
      Member
      Member

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

      Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 11 Jan 99, w/atchs.
      Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
      Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPP, dated 23 Mar 99.
      Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPR, dated 26 Apr 99.
      Exhibit E.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPWB, dated 5 May 99.
      Exhibit F.  Letter, AFPC/JA, dated 20 Jul 99.
      Exhibit G.  Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 1 Jun 99.
      Exhibit H.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPAB, dated 13 Aug 99.
      Exhibit I.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPR, dated 24 Aug 99.
      Exhibit J.  Letter, AFPC/JA, dated 2 Sep 99.
      Exhibit K.  Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 10 Sep 99.
      Exhibit L.  Letter, Applicant, dated 21 Sep 99, w/atchs.
       Exhibit  M.            AF/IG  SROI,  dated  7  May  98,   w/atchs
(withdrawn).



                 Panel Chair



AFBCMR 98-02041




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 1    ), it is directed that:

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

                 a.    She was awarded  the  Air  Force  Achievement  Medal,
Second Oak Leaf Cluster, for outstanding achievement during  the  period  17
September 1996 to 22 October 1996.

                       b.    She  was  awarded  the  Air  Force  Achievement
Medal, Third Oak  Leaf  Cluster,  for  outstanding  achievement  during  the
period 8 September 1996 to 1 January 1997.

c.    The citation to accompany the award of the Meritorious Service  Medal,
First Oak Leaf Cluster, be, and hereby is, amended to include the  sentence,
“During this period, Sergeant       took control and  monitored  the  unit’s
logistic support for  Operation  RESTORE  HOPE  and  quickly  established  a
$250,000 requisition account  for  7,000  line  items  needed  to  meet  the
initial bed down requirements.” before the second to the last sentence.

            d    She was promoted to the grade of  senior  master  sergeant,
effective and with date of rank of 1 July 1998.




                                        Director
                                        Air Force Review Boards Agency