RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER: 98-02290
                 INDEX CODE; 111.02 111.05
                 COUNSEL:  None

                 HEARING DESIRED:  No
_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

The Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) closing 1 July 1997  be  removed
from his records and the Meritorious Service Medal (MSM), 4th Oak Leaf
Cluster (4OLC), for the period 9 September 1995 through 31 May 1998 be
included in his records [The MSM has been included  by  administrative
correction - See Statement of Facts].
_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

“Unfavorable actions were rendered due to the IG  [Inspector  General]
complaint [he] filed.”

In support of his appeal, he provides the Special Order  awarding  him
the MSM 4OLC and three pages of the 16th Air Force IG  Summary  Report
of Investigation (SROI), dated 5 May 1998.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

During the period in question, the applicant was  the  Superintendent,
Combat Operations Support Flight, with the 39th Supply Squadron (39SS)
at Incirlik Air Base, Turkey.

The  contested  EPR  reflects  an  overall  rating  of  “5”  and   the
performance factors in Section III have  all  been  “firewalled.”  The
rater was the flight commander, the rater’s  rater  was  the  squadron
commander, and the indorser was  the  group  commander.  Section  VIII
(Final Evaluator’s Position) indicates the  indorser  was  the  senior
rater’s deputy---the second highest position possible.

On 9 September 1997, the applicant wrote to the 39th Wing IG  alleging
he had experienced reprisal by his squadron  commander  for  giving  a
protected statement  to  an  IG  investigator  during  a  separate  IG
investigation on 15 and 19 July 1997. [This investigation was  brought
against the squadron commander by one of the applicant’s Black  female
subordinates.] The applicant alleged the squadron commander withheld a
senior rater endorsement  to  [the  EPR  in  question].  Further,  the
squadron commander  allegedly  abused  his  authority,  in  part,  by:
Disapproving applicant’s selection  to  attend  a  management  course;
placing him on probation for six months without valid  reason;  firing
him from his position  as  Flight  Superintendent  because  he  openly
disagreed with the squadron  commander’s  nonconcurrence  on  an  EPR;
preventing his being  present  during  a  high-level  visit;  verbally
abusing him on several occasions over events not connected  with  him;
inappropriately revealing private personnel  matters;  pressuring  for
100% participation in a weekend event; and  publicly  criticizing  him
over allegedly incorrect data which  was  found  to  be  correct.  The
applicant also  accused  the  squadron  commander  of  fraternization,
tolerating   unprofessional    relationships,    favoritism,    racial
discrimination, and fraud, waste and abuse.

On 29 September 1997, the applicant submitted a complaint to the  39th
Wing IG, alleging reprisal; abuse of authority;  fraternization;  lack
of compliance with  Air  Force  directives  concerning  unprofessional
relationships; blatant favoritism, fraud, waste and abuse; and  racial
discrimination within the  39SS.  A  23  December  1997  ROI  did  not
substantiate any of the applicant’s 20 allegations, including reprisal
due to the applicant’s protected statement. According to page 8 of the
ROI, the indorser indicated he did  not  know  about  the  applicant’s
protected disclosure and  he  believed  in  his  squadron  commanders,
trusted their judgment and, if they felt strongly that  an  individual
did/did not meet the requirements for wing endorsement,  he  supported
their decision.

However, the 16th AF IG found the 39th Wing IG’s ROI  had  significant
discrepancies requiring further investigation.  Also,  the  39th  Wing
IG’s ROI was legally insufficient or partially substantiated regarding
6 of the applicant’s allegations.  As a result, on 30 April 1998,  the
39th Wing IG provided an Addendum to their original ROI wherein  4  of
the 20 allegations were substantiated. Primarily, were it not for  the
protected disclosure, the squadron commander would not have  precluded
the applicant from  receiving  senior  rater  endorsement.  All  other
substantiations dealt with the squadron commander’s inappropriate  and
unprofessional behavior while commanding the 39SS.

On 5 May  1998,  16th  AF  IG  SROI  substantiated  5  of  applicant’s
allegations. The SROI indicated  the  preponderance  of  the  evidence
established that, were  it  not  for  the  protected  disclosure,  the
squadron commander would not have taken unfavorable personnel  actions
against the complainant, i.e., withholding senior rater endorsement on
the contested EPR. The SROI substantiated that the squadron  commander
abused his authority  by  disapproving  the  applicant’s  attending  a
management course without a valid  reason;  improperly  ordering  100%
participation in a weekend event and then leaving  the  impression  it
was still required; and inappropriately  revealing  certain  personnel
matters.  With respect to the fraud, waste and abuse  allegation,  the
squadron commander’s conduct was both  inappropriate  and  created  an
appearance of impropriety.

The applicant retired in the grade of senior master sergeant on 1 June
1998 with 26 years and 12 days of active service.

On 5 November 1998, the applicant was advised by  HQ  AFPC/DPPRR  that
his DD Form 214 had been amended to reflect receipt of the MSM 4OLC.
_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The Chief, Inquiries/AFBCMR  Section,  HQ  AFPC/DPPPWB,  reviewed  the
appeal and advises  that,  should  the  Board  grant  the  applicant’s
request, he would be entitled to supplemental promotion  consideration
for the grade of chief master  sergeant  beginning  with  cycle  97E9,
providing he is otherwise eligible.

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

The Chief, SSB & BCMR Section, HQ AFPC/DPPPAB, also evaluated the case
and indicates that, absent information  from  a  performance  report’s
evaluators, official substantiation of error or injustice from the  IG
is  appropriate.  Applicant  provided  a  portion  of  an  SROI  which
substantiates his rater’s rater  committed  reprisal  against  him  by
withholding a senior rater endorsement to the contested EPR.  However,
the SROI does not implicate the rest of the  rating  chain  (indorser)
who agreed [emphasis advisory’s] with the rater’s and rater’s  rater’s
comments when he signed the report.  Had  the  indorser  believed  the
applicant’s performance warranted a  senior  rater’s  endorsement,  he
could have elected to forward the  report.  The  applicant  failed  to
include any supporting documentation from any  of  the  evaluators  to
confirm the EPR should have received  senior  rater  endorsement.  The
Chief recommends that, prior to  making  a  final  determination,  the
Board obtain the entire ROI from the IG and give DPPPAB an opportunity
to review the findings and make a recommendation.

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

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant reviewed the advisories and provided a copy  of  his  IG
complaint, a “Complaint Clarification,” and the complete SROI  of  his
complaint. He also provides a copy of the 7  July  1998  SROI  of  his
wife’s IG complaint. She  also  had  filed  a  complaint  against  the
squadron commander on 9 September 1997.  The  SROI  substantiated  her
allegations of reprisal, discrimination, and unfair/unjust  treatment,
but  not  of  favoritism  and  failure  to  comply  with   Air   Force
instructions.

A copy of his complete response, with attachments, is at Exhibit F.
_________________________________________________________________

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.  Since  the  applicant’s
DD Form 214 has been administratively corrected to reflect receipt  of
the MSM 4OLC, the only issue remaining for this Board’s  consideration
pertains to the contested EPR.  After  a  careful  review  of  the  IG
investigations, we are persuaded that the  report  should  be  voided.
According to page 8 of the 23 December 1997 ROI, the  group  commander
(indorser) claimed he did not know  about  the  applicant’s  protected
disclosure and he trusted his squadron commanders’ judgment  regarding
wing endorsements.  However, while the indorser doesn’t appear  to  be
specifically implicated by either the applicant or  the  ROI,  we  are
concerned that the report may be  tainted  by  the  animosity  of  the
squadron commander, who was the rater’s rater.  Therefore, in order to
offset any possibility of an injustice, we believe the  contested  EPR
should be  voided  and  the  applicant  given  supplemental  promotion
consideration for the grade of chief master  sergeant  beginning  with
cycle 97E9.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT:

The pertinent military records of the Department of  the  Air  Force
relating to APPLICANT, be corrected to show that the Senior Enlisted
Performance Report, AF Form 911, rendered for  the  period  16  July
1996 through 1 July 1997, be declared  void  and  removed  from  his
records.

It  is  further  recommended  that  he  be   provided   supplemental
consideration for promotion to the grade of  chief  master  sergeant
for all appropriate cycles beginning with cycle 97E9.

If AFPC discovers  any  adverse  factors  during  or  subsequent  to
supplemental  consideration  that  are  separate  and   apart,   and
unrelated to the issues involved in  this  application,  that  would
have rendered the individual  ineligible  for  the  promotion,  such
information will be documented and presented  to  the  board  for  a
final  determination  on  the  individual's  qualification  for  the
promotion.

If supplemental promotion consideration results in the selection for
promotion to the higher grade, immediately after such promotion  the
records shall be corrected to show  that  he  was  promoted  to  the
higher grade on the date of rank  established  by  the  supplemental
promotion and that he  is  entitled  to  all  pay,  allowances,  and
benefits of such grade as of that date.

_________________________________________________________________

The following members of the  Board  considered  this  application  in
Executive Session on 29 July 1999, under the  provisions  of  AFI  36-
2603:

                  Mr. Oscar A.Goldfarb, Panel Chair
                  Mr. Patrick R. Wheeler, Member
                  Mr. Charlie E. Williams Jr., Member

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

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 12 Aug 98, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPPWB, dated 24 Sep 98.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPPAB, dated 14 Oct 98
   Exhibit E.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 23 Nov 98.
   Exhibit F.  Letter, Applicant, undated, w/atchs.




                                   OSCAR A. GOLDFARB
                                   Panel Chair



AFBCMR 98-02290




MEMORANDUM FOR THE CHIEF OF STAFF

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

      The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air
Force relating to      , be corrected to show that the Senior Enlisted
Performance Report, AF Form 911, rendered for the period 16 July 1996
through 1 July 1997, be, and hereby is, declared void and removed from
his records.

      It is further directed that he be provided supplemental
consideration for promotion to the grade of chief master sergeant for
all appropriate cycles beginning with cycle 97E9.

      If AFPC discovers any adverse factors during or subsequent to
supplemental consideration that are separate and apart, and unrelated
to the issues involved in this application, that would have rendered
the individual ineligible for the promotion, such information will be
documented and presented to the board for a final determination on the
individual's qualification for the promotion.

      If supplemental promotion consideration results in the selection
for promotion to the higher grade, immediately after such promotion
the records shall be corrected to show that he was promoted to the
higher grade on the date of rank established by the supplemental
promotion and that he is entitled to all pay, allowances, and benefits
of such grade as of that date.





   JOE G. LINEBERGER

   Director

   Air Force Review Boards Agency