RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  98-02159
            INDEX CODE:  100.07
            COUNSEL:  None

            HEARING DESIRED:  No

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

The one  (1)  point  by  which  she  failed  Air  War  College  (AWC)  by
correspondence be waived and her record be corrected to  show  completion
of the program in June 1998.

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

She was enrolled in Edition 6 of the non-resident AWC program  which  was
comprised of writing a paper and passing 3 tests.  She had completed  all
the requirements except for the last test (Volume III), which she took on
5 May 1998.  She was told on 13 May 1998 that she had  failed  the  final
test.  Since students are permitted 30 days  to  retest  once  the  local
office receives the retest and reschedules the student for a retest,  she
requested that AWC personnel mail a retest.  She also  called  the  local
AWC proctor and requested an extension of the  30-day  period  to  retest
because she was scheduled to undergo major surgery on  5  June  1998  and
would be on convalescent leave for 6  weeks  thereafter  (until  20  July
1998).  She was advised that waiting until she returned from leave  would
be “excessive.”  She was therefore forced to take the test in 2 weeks,  3
days before her surgery.

On 9 June 1998, she was advised by AWC personnel that she had failed  the
retest by 1 point and that she would be  disenrolled  from  the  program.
She was also told that after the first failure, she was supposed to get a
letter telling her which areas she had failed to assist in  studying  for
the retest.  She never received such a letter.  When  she  retested,  she
missed mostly the same areas.  Had she received the letter showing  where
she was weak, because she had to  retest  in  2  weeks,  she  could  have
concentrated on those areas rather than  studying  everything.   She  was
advised by AWC authorities that she could have obtained the extension  to
retest which the local proctor denied.  The counselor indicated that,  in
view of the circumstances of her case, the  “best”  he  could  offer  was
enrollment in Edition 8, Volume III and give her 6 months to complete it.
 She does not believe this option  was  fair,  given  her  circumstances.
Based on the totality of the circumstances of her case, she believes that
favorable consideration of her request would be fair and appropriate.

In support of her application, she provided  a  personal  statement,  and
documents and correspondence associated with  the  events  cited  in  her
contentions (Exhibit A).

___________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant is a member of the Regular Air Force who has a Total Active
Federal Military Service  Date  (TAFMSD)  of  6  February  1979,  and  an
Extended Active Duty  (EAD)  and  a  Total  Active  Federal  Commissioned
Service Date (TAFCSD) of 23 June  1979.   She  was  integrated  into  the
Regular component on 31 January 1983 and  is  currently  serving  in  the
grade of lieutenant colonel, having been promoted to that grade  with  an
effective date and a date of rank of 1 February 1996.

By letter dated 8 June 1998, the  applicant  was  advised  that  she  was
disenrolled from AWC based on an examination failure.  The relevant facts
pertaining to the issues raised in her application are contained  in  the
letter  prepared  by  the  appropriate  Air  Force  office   of   primary
responsibility.  Accordingly, there is no need to recite these  facts  in
this Record of Proceedings.

___________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The Director, Air War College Nonresident Studies, AWC/NS, reviewed  this
application and recommended denial.   AWC/NS  stated  that  the  relevant
policies and examination procedures are contained  in  a  Program  Guide,
which is provided to every AWC correspondence student with their Volume I
course material.  The AWC  correspondence  program  contains  40  lessons
organized into 3 volumes.  A volume enrollment letter  containing  volume
start and suspense dates is mailed to each student at  the  beginning  of
each volume.  A student has up to 6  months  to  complete  each  volume’s
readings and pass a multiple-choice examination covering the material  in
that volume.  For each examination, a student will  receive  a  grade  of
Outstanding, Excellent,  Satisfactory,  or  Unsatisfactory.   A  feedback
letter indicating areas of the curriculum  where  further  study  may  be
required is mailed to all students after the examination is graded.  If a
student receives an Unsatisfactory  grade  on  a  volume  examination,  a
retake examination is automatically mailed  to  the  local  test  control
facility.  One retake examination is allowed as long  as  the  retake  is
taken within 30 days of its arrival at the local test  control  facility.
If  the  student  receives  an  Unsatisfactory  grade   on   the   retake
examination, the student is disenrolled from the program  and  loses  all
accumulated credit.  The student  cannot  enroll  in  the  correspondence
program for 6 months or until  the  next  course  edition  is  activated,
whichever occurs first.  The correspondence program is activated annually
and a new edition is activated in August.

AWC/NS stated that the minimum passing score for the 6th edition Volume 3
retake examination taken by the applicant was 59 percent.  The  applicant
scored a 56 percent on the  retake  examination.   Per  AWC  policy,  the
applicant was disenrolled from the correspondence program on 5 June 1998.

The author of the advisory opinion stated that he  had  worked  with  the
applicant since 1996 and was aware of the circumstances impacting her AWC
completion.  He stated that he was her advocate for a longer than  normal
extension request for her Volume 1  examination.   Due  to  her  personal
circumstances, the applicant was also given the option in early  1997  to
drop from the program “without prejudice” (the enrollment would not count
toward one of two allowable enrollments).  She declined this option, took
an  extension,  and  satisfactorily  completed   the   required   writing
assignment and two of three volume examinations.

AWC/NS  stated  that  a  copy  of  the  applicant’s  initial  examination
failure/feedback letter, dated 12 May 1998, and  her  retake  examination
failure/feedback letter, dated 5 June 1998, are present in  her  academic
file.  The presence  of  these  letters  indicates  to  AWC/NS  that  the
examination results were processed and mailed to  the  applicant.   While
she may not have received the letters, AWC/NS had no reason to doubt they
were mailed from AWC.

The author of the advisory opinion stated  that  he  discussed  with  the
applicant the exam failure and non-receipt of the exam feedback letter on
16  June  1998.   He  stated  that  the  applicant  was  aware   of   her
disenrollment from the program and that, according  to  AWC  policy,  she
must reenroll in Volume 1 of the current edition.  The applicant asked if
there were any other options and  he  explained  to  her  that  only  two
versions of each volume exam are developed and maintained.  Since she had
taken both versions, they did not have a third examination to  give  her.
Due to the rapport they had  established  early  in  her  enrollment,  he
expressed surprise and concern that she had not contacted  him  prior  to
taking the retake exam in light of her  upcoming  medical  situation  and
local  test  office  scheduling  difficulties.   He  also  explained  the
difficulty  in  working  this  issue  “after  the  fact.”   During   this
conversation, he  also  confirmed  the  applicant’s  address,  which  was
subsequently confirmed as her address on file at the AWC.  The  applicant
also confirmed that she had received 3 of 3 volumes  of  course  material
and 3 of 3 volume enrollment  letters,  all  mailed  at  different  times
throughout  her  enrollment  in   the   correspondence   program.    Upon
reflection, he decided to allow the applicant to enroll in Volume 3 (vice
starting the program from Volume 1) of the 8th edition at her convenience
(recommending she do so after she had returned from leave and had a month
or so back in the office) and to give her the full six months to complete
the volume before taking the Volume 3 exam.  Upon  successful  completion
of the exam, she would graduate as a correspondence  student.   While  he
had not discussed this with the applicant, he had  decided  to  waive  an
additional elective requirement as well.   The  applicant  appealed  this
decision to the AWC Commandant and based  on  considerations  of  policy,
fairness and academic standards and  because  of  the  option  previously
presented to the applicant, her appeals and requests for a  point  waiver
were disapproved.  She was provided an extremely rare policy exception in
that she was given the opportunity to retain credit  for  2  satisfactory
volume exams and a writing assignment, permitted to enroll in Volume 3 of
a current edition, given the  maximum  allowable  time  of  6  months  to
complete the volume, and  a  waiver  of  the  elective  requirement  (not
required until 7th and later editions).  To date, the applicant  has  not
pursued the option presented to her.

AWC/NS again stated that the passing score for the retest on Volume 3 was
59 percent.  The applicant scored a 56 percent on the retake examination.
 Her score was double checked to include having  her  retake  examination
answers hand scored -— the results were the  same.   AWC/NS  stated  that
receipt of an examination failure feedback letter does not always  result
in an AWC student passing a retake examination.

AWC/NS is of the opinion that it is in the  best  interests  of  the  Air
Force  that  this  application  be  denied.   AWC/NS  stated   that   the
applicant’s military record from AWC is correct.  She has  not  completed
the requirements necessary for an AWC diploma.

A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit B.

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant reviewed the advisory opinion  and  disagrees  with  AWC/NS
analysis of her case.  She indicated that the statement that  her  retest
score was 56 percent is in error because she was verbally told  that  her
Volume 3 test (not retest) score was 56 percent and that her retest score
was 58 percent.  It was when she was notified of the retest failure  that
it was discovered that she had not received the initial feedback  letter.
In his conversation with her on 16 June 1998, the author of the  advisory
opinion stated that he had personally rechecked the scoring of her retest
but could not waive the 1 point.  If she had failed the  retest  by  more
than 1 point, she would not have requested that those points  be  waived.
She would have considered the option presented to her, even though  still
very concerned that she retested unfairly based on the  circumstances  as
presented in her initial submission.  However, during  her  conversations
on 16 June 1998, she was never told she had failed by more than 1  point,
nor did he mention a 3-point failure.  She  believes  that  this  is  the
first credibility problem with the advisory opinion.

The second credibility problem is that the  commandant’s  letter  to  her
never addressed what the advisory writer  is  now  contending,  that  she
failed the retest by 3 points, not 1.  She believes that  the  number  of
points by which she failed should have been  made  an  issue  during  her
conversations with the advisory writer and when she received  the  letter
from the  commandant.   She  does  not  believe  the  AWC  administrative
enlisted staff lied to her in May and June about her  test  scores.   She
believes that her test score suddenly “changed” because she  had  pursued
this issue to the Board.

As to fairness, the applicant  questions  whether  the  circumstances  of
other disenrolled students were similar to hers.  In addition, concerning
the academic standards cited by AWC/NS, the applicant stated she is aware
of an officer who was permitted to enroll a third  time  because  of  the
backing of a  general  officer.   She  stated  that  AWC  does  not  want
unacceptable precedents and yet they set  one  themselves.   Furthermore,
she never said she never received any letters.  What she told AWC/NS  was
that she never received any failure letters until June 1998.

She would agree that having  a  feedback  letter  does  not  guarantee  a
student passing a retake examination.  However,  it  would  have  been  a
benefit which cannot be discounted.  AWC cannot prove  she  received  the
failure letter before the retest and she cannot prove she did not get it.
 She can only say that her  personal  and  professional  integrity  would
never allow her to pursue this appeal  if  any  of  the  information  she
provided to the Board members was not completely true.

As to  the  advisory  writer’s  comments  concerning  events  during  her
enrollment in 1996, she believes that these matters are irrelevant to the
issues raised in her appeal but since the issues have been raised, she is
providing the following comments.  She did not address this issue because
her appeal is not based on her  degenerative  medical  condition  or  her
surgery of this past summer - it is based on not receiving  the  required
failure feedback letter before retest.  In 1996, she was  diagnosed  with
an extremely painful and debilitating degenerative disc  disease  of  the
neck.  Her doctor requested a 3-month extension from AWC  for  her  first
volume test since she was so heavily sedated for  pain  in  the  evenings
when she would have  been  able  to  study.   The  “longer  than  normal”
extension amounted to 1 month and she was told to take  it  or  disenroll
without prejudice.  She had almost finished her paper and was  not  about
to loose what she had completed so she took the 1-month extension.

She cannot help but believe someone is being less than  honest  and  that
her records have been altered to show her Volume 3 test and retest scores
were identical when they were not.  She continues  to  believe  that  the
circumstances of her case warrant approval of the requested relief.

The applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit D.

___________________________________________________________________


ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Pursuant to the Board’s request, AWC/NS again reviewed  this  application
and recommended denial.  Following an explanation of the scoring process,
AWC/NS stated the applicant’s academic record (which they have  provided)
shows that on her Volume 3 examination scores, the  applicant  was  given
test number 66 and scored  a  41  on  the  first  exam.   She  was  given
examination number 65 on the retest where she scored a 56.

If a student fails an examination, the original failing score remains  in
the  student’s  academic  record  until  the  retest  score  is  received
electronically from ECI.  The AWC academic record database is designed in
a manner where a  retest  score  overrides  the  original  score  on  the
electronic student’s record viewable by the AWC nonresident  faculty  and
administrative staff.  Original exam scores are retained in  the  secured
database.  The applicant’s original exam score of 41 was viewable by  AWC
nonresident faculty and administrative staff until 5 June 1998 (the  date
the retest was scanned by ECI and the score of  56  percent  was  entered
into her academic record).

AWC/NS pointed out that in  the  case  of  the  applicant’s  70-question,
Volume 3 retest, each question was worth 1.43.  The applicant  missed  31
questions out of 70 giving her  a  score  of  55.67  (rounded  up  to  56
percent).  If she had missed one less question (30), her score would have
been 57.1 percent.  If she had missed 2 fewer questions (29),  her  score
would have been 58.53, rounded up to 59 percent).  In short,  it  is  not
mathematically possible for the applicant to have  scored  a  58  on  her
retake examination.

The original appeal as well as the applicant’s first and second  rebuttal
points address verbal conversations with the AWC administrative staff and
himself, and are based  on  the  term  “point.”   The  original  advisory
opinion was prepared 4 months after these conversations.  The  author  of
the advisory cannot now state unequivocally that they did or did not  use
the  word  “point”  in  his  discussions  with  the  applicant.   Clearly
miscommunication cannot be discounted.  As was previously mentioned,  the
issue is one of academic performance -- the applicant did  not  pass  the
Volume 3 retest.

Although he did not state so in his letter,  at  the  time  he  made  his
decision, the AWC commandant was aware that the applicant had failed  the
retest by three points.

The applicant’s allegation that her examination scores have been  altered
due to her appeal  is  false.   The  examination  procedural  and  access
controls delineated above do not permit  examination  data  manipulation.
Moreover, it is mathematically  impossible  for  the  applicant  to  have
scored a 58 percent on the retest.

AWC/NS stated that they do not track cases where students who  have  been
disenrolled due to failing retake examinations and  the  students  inform
the school that they never received  their  failure  letter  listing  the
missing DLOs.  However, in his 3½ years at the AWC,  this  is  the  first
time this has come to the attention of the advisory writer.

Also untrue is the applicant’s claim that  she  was  treated  differently
than a similarly situated officer.  AWC/NS stated  that  the  applicant’s
conclusion in this regard is faulty.  She is not requesting reenrollment,
has not failed a second attempt at the AWC nonresident program,  nor  has
she been disenrolled from the program twice.  Policy exceptions, such  as
allowing a student to enroll in the program  a  third  time,  extensions,
etc., are made based on the  extenuating  circumstances  contained  in  a
student’s policy waiver request as endorsed by the student’s  supervisor.
If an additional  enrollment  opportunity  or  a  suspense  extension  is
granted, a student must still meet the  academic  performance  standards.
As they previously stated, the applicant was provided an  extremely  rare
policy exception and offered the  opportunity  to  successfully  complete
only Volume 3 of the 8th edition.

The additional assessment is at Exhibit E.

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

After reviewing the additional advisory opinion, the applicant reiterated
her initial contention that the crux of her  appeal  has  been  that  she
never received the DLO failure letter after testing and failing Volume 3.
 She was therefore “denied” (so to speak) the opportunity to  concentrate
her studying on the areas identified to her as weak.

As to the references in the advisory to a score of  58,  she  is  unaware
where this came from; she never mentioned it.  Nor was she aware  of  the
number of points assigned to each question.  All she has said was she was
told she failed the retest by one point and that she should have received
the DLO failure letter after failing the Volume 3 test.

Merely because the author of  the  advisory  opinion  has  never  seen  a
situation similar to hers where the  student  failed  to  receive  a  DLO
failure letter does not mean it  has  not  occurred.   In  addition,  she
believes that allowing a person to enroll a third time as an exception to
policy does have an affect on their “academic standard.”

She believes that the contentions that the “AWC database is  secure”  and
“examination procedural and  access  controls  delineated…do  not  permit
examination data manipulation” are true -- but only as of the week  of  9
February 1999.  She has  been  informed  of  certain  changes  to  access
procedures which were made just prior to the time  the  advisory  opinion
was finalized.  She does not  wish  to  accuse  anyone  of  changing  her
original scores but these recent changes confirm in her mind that someone
could have done so after she filed her application.

The applicant’s review and additional supportive documents are 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.  Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate  the
existence of probable error or injustice.  After  reviewing  all  of  the
evidence provided, we do not believe approval of the requested relief  is
appropriate.  The evidence shows that the applicant failed the  test  for
Volume 3 of the 6th Edition of the AWC.   In  our  view,  the  number  of
points by which she failed is immaterial  to  the  matter  at  hand.   We
believe that an injustice did occur  in  this  case  when,  for  whatever
reason, she did not receive the examination failure/feedback letter after
her first failure, thereby depriving of notice of the areas which  needed
her closer attention.  This situation was compounded by the inappropriate
advice she was provided concerning an extension of the 30-day  period  of
time to retest  based  on  her  medical  circumstances,  resulting  in  a
retesting  date  in  approximately  half  the  time  she  would  normally
otherwise have had.  Furthermore, all the foregoing occurred when she had
nearly completed the course.  Nevertheless, we believe that when the  AWC
offered her the opportunity to enroll in Volume 3 of the current  edition
of the AWC, authorizing the full 6 months to complete the  volume  before
taking the Volume 3 test, without requiring any elective requirement, she
was afforded proper and fitting relief for any potential injustice  which
may have occurred in this case.  We have been  advised  that  this  offer
remains open to the applicant.  Therefore, in  view  of  the  above,  and
based on our belief that the injustice present  in  this  case  does  not
warrant relief in a form greater  than  that  already  available  to  the
applicant, we are not inclined to favorably consider her application.

___________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:

The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not demonstrate
the  existence  of  probable  material  error  or  injustice;  that   the
application was denied  without  a  personal  appearance;  and  that  the
application will only  be  reconsidered  upon  the  submission  of  newly
discovered relevant evidence not considered with this application.

___________________________________________________________________

The following  members  of  the  Board  considered  this  application  in
Executive Session on 23 March 1999, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

      Ms. Patricia J. Zarodkiewicz, Panel Chair
      Ms. Dorothy P. Loeb, Member
      Ms. Olga M. Crerar, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 3 August 1998, with attachments.
    Exhibit B.  Letter, AWC/NS, dated 19 October 1998.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 23 October 1998.
    Exhibit D.  Letter from the applicant, dated 1 November 1998.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, AWC/NS, dated 12 February 1999, with
                attachments.
      Exhibit F.  Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 1 March 1999.
      Exhibit G.  Letter from the applicant, dated 5 March 1999, with
                attachments.




                                   PATRICIA J. ZARODKIEWICZ
                                   Panel Chair