RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER: 98-02175
                 INDEX CODE 111.01 111.05 134.02

      XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX  COUNSEL:  None


      XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX HEARING DESIRED:  Yes
_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

1.    The referral Officer Performance Report (OPR) for the  period  4
July 1996 through 3 July 1997 be declared void.

2.    All evidence of an improper Inspector General (IG) investigation
be removed.
_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

She was denied  due  process.  The  IG  investigation  was  incomplete
because it did not fairly  make  inquiries  to  all  persons  who  had
knowledge of the situations cited. It did not  include  a  review  and
assessment  of  all  available  evidence.  It  disclosed  Privacy  Act
information and has been a source of embarrassment to her both in  her
military and civilian employment. The OPR, written as a result of  the
investigation, contains inaccurate information. She  adamantly  denies
the charges. She did her best to ameliorate whatever problems  existed
in the unit, never attacked or sullied anyone’s  personnel  character,
and raised what she considered issues of integrity  as  diplomatically
as possible. She did not knowingly violate any Air Force  Instructions
(AFIs) or failed to follow the Air Force Core Values.

A copy of applicant's complete submission is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

During the period in question, the applicant  was  a  Reserve  colonel
serving as the Chief Nurse with the XXXXXXXXX at XXXXXXX XXX, XX,  and
in her civilian job worked as a GS-13 Nurse Consultant for the FDA.

On 28 October 1996, the 22AF commander directed an investigation  into
IG complaints filed with the XXXXX/XX in June and August 1996 by three
of the  applicant’s  subordinates.  They  contended  they  had  either
witnessed or were subjected to questionable  management  practices  of
the applicant. The investigation was conducted  from  1 to  3 November
1996. On 5 November 1996, the scope of the investigation was  expanded
to  include  additional  allegations  that  the  applicant   performed
military duty for the Reserves while on sick leave from the  FDA  (her
civilian job), did  not  promptly  report  a  medical  condition,  and
performed military duty for the Reserves with a medical condition that
disqualified her for world-wide duty.

The conclusions of the IG investigation were: One of the  complainants
had been removed from her position by the  applicant  for  substandard
performance; the applicant was found  to  have  harassed,  humiliated,
degraded and/or verbally abused subordinates; the  applicant  did  not
undermine subordinate job performance; and  her  mistreatment  of  her
subordinates was acknowledged and condoned by her immediate  commander
and group commander.  The investigation did not verify the  additional
allegation  involving  her  use  of  sick  leave  with  the  FDA   and
performance of military duty. It did, however, verify the  allegations
of her failure to promptly report a change in  medical  condition  and
her performance  of  military  duty  with  a  medical  condition  that
rendered her incapable of world-wide duty.

On 1 March 1997, the applicant was removed from her  position  as  the
Chief Nurse, XXX  XXXX,  XXXXXXX  XXX,  XX,  and  given  a  letter  of
reprimand (LOR)  for  maltreating,  harassing,  threatening,  verbally
abusing and degrading subordinates from 1995  through  1996,  and  for
performing military duty while knowing she  had  a  medical  condition
which disqualified her for world-wide duty, in  violation  of  Article
92, UCMJ.

On 5 August 1997, the contested OPR was referred to the applicant. She
was  marked  “Does  Not  Meet  Standards”  in  Leadership  Skills  and
Professional Qualities. The rater stated the applicant  was  dismissed
from the Chief Nurse position. The  additional  rater  considered  the
applicant’s rebuttal comments but concurred with the rater,  referring
to the dismissal, personnel problems and IG complaints.  The applicant
filed an appeal on  18 September  1998  with  the  Evaluation  Reports
Appeal Board (ERAB). However, the ERAB declined to formally review her
appeal and returned it without action for  not  containing  convincing
supporting documentation.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The Director of Personnel Program Management, HQ ARPC/DP, reviewed the
appeal and states that if the applicant has concerns about the conduct
of the IG investigation  she  should  address  those  concerns  to  HQ
XXXX/IGQ, SAF/IGQ, or the DODIG because HQ ARPC/DP has no authority to
question the validity of  the  IG  investigation.  While  AFI  36-2402
indicates that raters  should  be  cautious  about  using  information
obtained from investigations that are not complete as of the  closeout
date of the report, it does not prohibit the rater from using reliable
information resulting from IG investigations. There is no evidence the
contested OPR is not a true reflection of her performance. The correct
referral report procedures were followed.  Disapproval is recommended.

Attached to the  evaluation  is  a  memo  from  the  Chief,  Executive
Support, HQ AFRC/DP, to HQ ARPC/DSZ. The memo provides a  synopsis  of
the  Senior  Officer  Unfavorable  Information  File  (SOUIF)  process
relative to the applicant’s request for “removal of any references  to
[her] personnel folder regarding an IG  investigation.”   If  a  SOUIF
Summary is prepared, the officer is notified by SAF/IG and  given  any
opportunity  to  comment  on  the  information  in  the  summary.  The
officer’s comments will accompany the SOUIF Summary presented  to  the
promotion board.

A copy of the complete Air Force evaluation, with attachments,  is  at
Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant reviewed the advisory opinion and, in a letter dated  14
April 1999, asserted the IG investigation was flawed because the rater
never  discussed  any  reported  complaints  during  her   performance
feedback session five months before  the  IG  investigation.  She  was
never notified by the rater, the 459 wing and group commanders or  the
XXXXXXXXX that she  was  the  subject  of  an  IG  investigation.  The
investigating officer did  not  consider  and  report  the  facts  and
violated crucial rules of investigation. Information from the FDA  was
incorrect and obtained illegally.

She subsequently asked the AFBCMR Staff for an extension in  order  to
obtain additional documents through the  Freedom  of  Information  Act
(FOIA) process, and her request was granted with an extension until  1
July 1999. By electronic mailgram  (Email)  dated  1  July  1999,  she
advised that since she did not know when she would receive a  response
to her FOIA request, the Board was to consider her  case  without  her
additional comments.

Copies of the applicant’s responses, with attachments, are at  Exhibit
E.

_________________________________________________________________

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 a thorough  review
of the evidence of record  and  applicant’s  submission,  we  are  not
persuaded that the contested OPR, the IG  investigation,  and  related
documentation  such  as  the  LOR  should   be   voided.   Applicant’s
contentions are duly noted; however, we do not find these  assertions,
in and by themselves, sufficiently persuasive to override the evidence
of record.  The  IG  investigation  appears  to  support  the  adverse
actions taken against the applicant. She has not  provided  persuasive
evidence demonstrating that the investigation  and  its  ramifications
were improper or denied her due process as she  contends.   The  OPR’s
assessment of her performance has not been shown to be  inaccurate  or
unjust.  We therefore  conclude  that  the  applicant  has  failed  to
sustain her burden of having suffered either an error or an  injustice
and, in the absence of persuasive evidence to the  contrary,  find  no
compelling basis to recommend granting the relief sought.


4.    The documentation provided with this case was sufficient to give
the Board a clear understanding of the issues involved and a  personal
appearance, with or without legal counsel, would not  have  materially
added to that understanding.  Therefore, the request for a hearing  is
not favorably considered.
_________________________________________________________________

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 14 December 1999, under the provisions of AFI 36-
2603:

                  Ms. Patricia J. Zarodkiewicz, Panel Chair
                  Ms. Patricia D. Vestal, Member
                  Ms. Melinda J. Loftin, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 29 Jul 98, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, HQ ARPC/DP, dated 2 Feb 99, w/atchs.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 22 Feb 99.
   Exhibit E.  Letter, Applicant, dated 14 Apr 99, w/atchs,
                 and Email dated 1 Jul 99.
   Exhibit F.  Letters, AFBCMR, dated 3 & 11 May 99.




                                   PATRICIA J. ZARODKIEWICZ

                                   Panel Chair