RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER: 98-02407
                 INDEX CODE  111.01   111.05
                 COUNSEL:  None

                 HEARING DESIRED:  No
_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

1.     The  referral  Officer   Performance   Report   (OPR)   closing
26 September 1996 be removed from his records.

2.    He be allowed to complete again for Intermediate Service  School
(ISS).
_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He got hammered too hard for an honest mistake.  During  a  one-on-one
career counseling session in his office, in an impassioned attempt  to
sway  one  first  classman  from  navigator  training,  he   made   an
inappropriate comment.  When he implied that navigators  were  treated
like African-Americans, he was trying to convey “second-class status;”
that  is,  two  groups  of  individuals  he  felt  were   historically
discriminated against. The cadet (who  was  not  African-American  and
later admitted in private that he thought the whole incident got blown
out of proportion) mentioned the comment to his  friends.  The  “rumor
mill” transmitted the comment throughout the wing and up to the  cadet
wing commander.  He was removed from command, redlined from  ISS  (for
which he was granted eligibility at his major’s promotion board),  and
issued the referral OPR.  His comment was neither  discriminatory  nor
racially motivated.

He provides his rebuttal package to the referral OPR, other OPRs,  and
numerous strongly supportive letters (including ones from  his  rater,
cadets, peers, superiors, navigators, general officers,  and  African-
Americans).

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant is currently serving on extended active duty in the grade of
major (date of rank: 1 March 1997), assigned as the Global Positioning
System Test Director at the Detachment 4, Air Force Operational Test &
Evaluation Center, Peterson AFB, CO. During the period in question, he
was a Cadet Squadron Commander at the USAF Academy (USAFA).

The Professional Military Education office at AFPC informally  advised
the AFBCMR  Staff  that  the  applicant  was  selected  by  the  Major
Selection Board for candidacy for ISS but was removed before he  could
be considered by ISS Selection Board.

In September 1996, the contested OPR was referred to the applicant. In
the referral report, the rater indicated the applicant “Did  Not  Meet
Standards” in the “Professional Qualities” block  of  Section  V.   He
also included remarks in the  “Rater’s  Overall  Assessment”  section.
The applicant provided a rebuttal.  However, the additional rater  and
reviewer concurred with the rater.

The applicant filed a similar appeal  under  AFI  36-2401,  which  was
denied by the Evaluation Reports Appeal Board (ERAB) on 31 July 1998.
_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The Chief, Appeals & SSB Branch, HQ AFPC/DPPPA, reviewed this case and
asserts that it is necessary to hear from all of the evaluators of the
referral report. By the rater’s own admission, he was not coerced.  If
he believed  the  applicant’s  duty  performance  did  not  warrant  a
referral report, he should have “gone to bat” for the applicant  then,
submitting a report he believed accurate, and allowed his evaluator to
refer the report.  In the  absence  of  information  from  evaluators,
official substantiation of  error  or  injustice  from  the  Inspector
General (IG) or Social Actions (SA) is appropriate, but  not  provided
in this case.  The applicant mentions  he  was  exonerated  by  an  SA
investigation; however, he failed to including  the  findings  of  the
investigation for review. Based on the evidence provided,  it  appears
the report was  accomplished  in  direct  accordance  with  applicable
regulations and denial is recommended. If the Board decides  to  grant
the applicant relief and remove the referral  OPR,  the  author  would
have no objection to reinstating his ISS candidacy.

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

The Chief,  Professional  Military  Education  (PME),  HQ  AFPC/DPAPE,
asserts that  the  Officer  PME  branch’s  “objective”  is  to  select
officers for ISS and Senior Service School (SSS) who  clearly  possess
the very  best  leadership  potential  and  will  most  likely  occupy
positions  of  increasingly  greater  responsibility.    Clearly   the
applicant does not meet the standards that they look for  in  “future”
leaders. Denial is appropriate. However, if the Board decides to grant
the applicant relief and remove the  OPR,  the  Chief’s  office  would
grant the applicant an SSB for ISS consideration.

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

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant reviewed the evaluations and explains that he  purposely
waited for things to cool down before putting the rater “on the  spot”
by petitioning his support with this appeal.   He  did  not  want  two
careers ruined over one slip of the tongue. If he had to face a senior
colonel and a brigadier general who had already made  up  their  minds
about an issue, he also might  “reluctantly  agree”  to  their  wishes
(even if he vehemently felt their decision was wrong). He believes the
other supporting statements are pertinent. Why did others get  removed
from command without adverse documentation, while he got removed  from
command with career-threatening documentation? He  believes  the  “new
accountability” and “political correctness” have gotten out  of  hand.
His comment was not inflammatory or discriminatory. According  to  the
testimony  by  African-Americans  and  navigators,  both  groups  were
historically  mistreated  and  underrepresented  in   key   leadership
positions in the Air Force. His intentions were good, his  information
was accurate---only his analogy was inappropriate. Ironically, he is a
better officer and leader because of this ordeal, but may never get  a
chance to show it.

Applicant’s 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.   After  thoroughly
reviewing the available evidence and the  applicant’s  submission,  we
are convinced that his comment was  neither  derogatory  nor  racially
motivated. In our view, the  applicant  was  sincerely  attempting  to
apprise the cadet of certain unfortunate realities that have sometimes
occurred with respect to career and  promotion  opportunities.  Racist
and discriminatory words and actions  cannot  be  tolerated;  however,
efforts to enforce this philosophy should not  themselves  precipitate
injustice. While the applicant’s choice of words may have  contributed
to his comment  being  misconstrued,  especially  when  taken  out  of
context, we believe the referral OPR is an injustice.   The  applicant
may have made a well-intentioned mistake, but the price  he  has  been
made to pay is too high. We believe that, had his record been correct,
he would have been recommended for ISS.  We  cannot  determine,  based
upon the evidence before us, whether he would have been  selected  for
ISS by a duly constituted board. We believe he  should  be  given  the
opportunity to secure a recommendation for ISS  after  his  record  is
corrected. We note he wishes consideration  by  the  CY98  ISS  Board;
therefore, provided he obtains the necessary recommendation, he should
be considered by SSB for the CY98 ISS Board.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT:

The pertinent military records of the  Department  of  the  Air  Force
relating to APPLICANT, be corrected to show  that  the  Company  Grade
Officer Performance Report, AF Form 707B, rendered for  the  period  8
February 1996 through 26 September 1996, be declared void and  removed
from his records.

It is further recommended that, provided he  submits  a  completed  AF
Form 3849, PME/AFIT/RTFB/Officer Worksheet,  he  be  considered  by  a
Special Selection  Board  for  the  Calendar  Year  1998  Intermediate
Service School Selection Board.

_________________________________________________________________

The following members of the  Board  considered  this  application  in
Executive Session on 15 June 1999, under the  provisions  of  AFI  36-
2603:

                  Mr. Vaughn E. Schlunz, Panel Chair
                  Dr. Gerald B. Kauvar, Member
                  Mr. Michael V. Barbino, Member

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

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 10 Aug 98, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPPA, dated 21 Sep 98.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPAPE, dated 28 Sep 98.
   Exhibit E.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 12 Oct 98.
   Exhibit F.  Letter, Applicant, dated 13 Oct 98.




                                   VAUGHN E. SCHLUNZ
                                   Panel Chair




AFBCMR 98-02407




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 Company
Grade Officer Performance Report, AF Form 707B, rendered for the
period 8 February 1996 through 26 September 1996, be, and hereby is,
declared void and removed from his records.

      It is further directed that, provided he submits a completed AF
Form 3849, PME/AFIT/RTFB/Officer Worksheet, he be considered by a
Special Selection Board for the Calendar Year 1998 Intermediate
Service School Selection Board.





   JOE G. LINEBERGER

   Director

   Air Force Review Boards Agency