RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  98-03550
                       INDEX CODE:  111.01

                       COUNSEL:  NONE

                       HEARING DESIRED:  NO


_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

1.    The Officer Performance Reports (OPRs) rendered for the  periods
14 May 1996 through 30 January 1997 and 31  January  1997  through  18
June 1997, be declared void and removed from her records.

2.    She be considered for promotion to the grade of major by Special
Selection Board (SSB)  for  the  Calendar  Year  1998B  (CY98B)  Major
Selection Board.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The Inspector General (IG) investigation filed by her in January  1997
adversely effected the preparation of the contested OPRs.

She  initiated  the  IG  complaint  based  on  what  she   viewed   as
discriminatory  treatment  by   her   commander.    The   investigator
considered  six  allegations  of   which   two   were   substantiated,
allegations four and  six.   Based  on  the  findings,  she  has  some
concerns that support the removal of the contested reports.

      (A) The contested OPR closing 30 January 1997 was written  after
her commander was investigated.  The investigation  started  6 January
1997 and was completed February 1997.  The contested  OPR  closing  30
January 1997 was written and signed 6 March 1997.  Additionally,  this
contested report does not reflect that during this rating  period  she
was the Squadron Company Grade Officer of the Year.

      (B) She was removed from her position as flight  commander  five
days after her informal IG complaint was made.  Her  concern  here  is
reprisal after initiating a complaint.

      (C) Allegation six, the inspector states, “The  removal  of  the
complainant from her position as Flight  Commander  was  not  a  sound
management decision.  Based on the number of poorly handled  incidents
that occurred involving her.”

      (D) Allegation six, the inspector states, “The facts  show  that
the (commander), intentionally or unintentionally held the complainant
to a higher standard of accountability...”

      (E) She was called while on Christmas leave at her parents home,
five days after initiating the informal complaint to the  IG  and  was
told by her commander, “When you return from leave, do not  come  back
to the 48th Intel Squadron, report to the 9th Communications  Squadron
(9thCS).”  Her concern with the contested report closing 18 June  1997
is that she was transferred based on an agreement made between the two
commanders who were close acquaintances.  They lived next door to each
other.  In the IG Summary,  the  inspector  states,  “the  complainant
reassigned to the (9thCS), no paperwork or personnel action done.”

      (F) She  feels  the  relationship  between  the  two  commanders
clouded the 9thCS Commander’s ability to deliver  a  fair  evaluation,
resulting in a 139-day OPR that does not fully reflect the quality  of
her performance or ability to command.   She  realizes  now  that  she
should have pursued removal of the contested reports as soon  as  they
were made a matter of record, however, at the time she  did  not  feel
there was support to assist her in preparing a response.   Within  the
past  couple  of  months  she  has   received   the   mentorship   and
encouragement to use the system she has served to address this  issue.


In support of the appeal, applicant submits a statement  from  the  IG
investigating officer stating his findings clearly  substantiate  some
of her complaints.  During his investigation many of her  subordinates
confirmed that she was doing an outstanding job and the commander  did
not do everything he  could  to  ensure  she  had  all  the  resources
required to be successful.  The contested reports do not  reflect  the
applicant’s   job   performance   as   described   to   him   by   her
peers/subordinates.  As part of his follow-up on her case,  he  talked
with the commander of the unit the applicant was transferred  to.   He
never indicated that he had any problems with her performance.  It  is
his opinion that a great injustice has occurred and he hopes that  the
Board will take steps to correct it.

Applicant also submits a statement from the rater of her  OPR  closing
18 June 1998 stating  he  has  personally  witnessed  the  applicant’s
leadership and command capabilities for over a year.  She  has  proven
to him, beyond any shadow of a doubt, that she has what  it  takes  to
perform in the rank of major.  She was his number one choice  to  lead
the first deployment of a new radar to  track  ballistic  missiles  in
Korea.  He spoke with  her  previous  commander  after  reviewing  the
contested OPR closing 18 June 1997
and, from what he can ascertain, he believes she was treated  unfairly
at Beale AFB.  She is command ready, deserves promotion and should  be
selected for Intermediate Service School (ISS).

Applicant's complete submission is attached at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant is currently serving on  extended  active  duty  in  the
grade of captain.

Applicant was considered and not selected for promotion to  the  grade
of major by the CY98B Selection Board.

OPR profile since 1991, follows:

           PERIOD ENDING           EVALUATION OF POTENTIAL

                        28 Feb 91        Meets Standards (MS)
                        29 Feb 92              MS
                        11 Dec 92        Education/Training Report
                        13 May 93              MS
                        13 May 94              MS
                        13 May 95              MS
                        13 May 96              MS
                       *30 Jan 97              MS
                     # *18 Jun 97              MS
                        18 Jun 98              MS

* Contested reports
# Top report for the CY98B board

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The  Chief,  Appeals  and  SSB  Branch,   AFPC/DPPPA,   reviewed   the
application  and  states  that  the  investigating  officer  did   not
substantiate the applicant’s allegation of discrimination.   They  are
not convinced the peers, subordinates, or  the  investigating  officer
were able  to  more  accurately  assess  the  applicant’s  performance
considering they were not the individuals charged with performing this
responsibility.  They note that there are  six  different  evaluators,
and if either of the raters on the contested reports  were  biased  in
any  way,  then  the  additional  raters  or  reviewers   would   have
nonconcurred  with  the  raters’  comments  and  marked  the   reports
accordingly.   Statements  from  the  evaluators  from  the  contested
periods are conspicuously absent.  In order to successfully  challenge
the validity of an evaluation report, it is important to hear from the
evaluators - not
necessarily for support, but at least  for  clarification/explanation.
The applicant  has  not  provided  any  such  documentation.   Without
benefit of these statements, they  can  only  conclude  the  OPRs  are
accurate as written.  There is no clear evidence the  OPRs  negatively
impacted her  promotion  opportunity.   Central  boards  evaluate  the
entire  officer  selection  record  (OSR)  (including  the   promotion
recommendation form, OPRs,  officer  effectiveness  reports,  training
reports, letters of evaluation,  decorations,  and  officer  selection
brief)  assessing  whole  person  factors  such  as  job  performance,
professional qualities, depth and breadth of  experience,  leadership,
and academic  and  professional  military  education.   They  are  not
convinced the contested  OPRs  caused  the  applicant’s  nonselection.
They recommend denial of applicant's request.

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

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant reviewed the Air Force evaluation and  states  that  the
OPRs and the IG Report  in  question  provides  numerous  examples  of
flagrant violations of Air Force regulations and inappropriate  misuse
of authority.  She filed her IG complaint on 6 January  1997  and  the
first OPR in question closed out on 30 January 1997 and the  next  OPR
in question closed out on 18 June 1997.  Please reflect  back  to  her
OPR closing out 13 May 1996.  This was her first OPR signed by LtCol W-
--.  In Section IV, it reads “Solid performance - led the  first  ever
deployment of Mobile Stretch  (MOBSTR),  a  satellite  relay  able  to
support U-2 operations without deploying DHS-2; established operations
as site commander.  Built superb contract/Air Force team; 100% mission
completion rate in first rate in first 6 months of operation.   Served
as senior US military representative at Rimini AB, Italy, coordinating
all US activities at this busy NATO airlift gateway to the Bonia AOR -
lauded  by  the  Italian  Base  Commander  for  her  professionalism.”
Section VI: “Capable communicator; developed a MOBSTR  operations  and
capabilities brief and hosted numerous distinguished NATO visitors  to
her site,  including  Lt  Gen  R---,  AFSOUTH/CC.  A  clearly  capable
officer; continue  to  challenge  and  she  will  produce  -  send  to
intermediate service school.”  SECTION VII:  “Outstanding  initiative;
superbly set a towering standard as first-ever MOBSTR site  commander.
Developed detailed  continuity  book  to  pave  way  for  future  site
commanders; effort praised by 12 AF/IN.  A  fine  leader  with  proven
potential; continue to challenge this talented professional and select
for ISS.”  Her next OPR, closing out 30 January 1997, was  written  by
LtCol W--- after she filed her IG complaint and  while  he  was  under
investigation.  SECTION VI he went from “send to intermediate  service
school” to “select for  intermediate  service  school  in  residence.”
SECTION VII: “Consider for intermediate service school when eligible.”
 The last report in question was written by Lt Col R---, who is Lt Col
W---’s next door neighbor.  This report is truly amazing – no  mention
of Intermediate Service School in SECTIONS VI or VII.   Her  next  OPR
closing out 18 January 1998, SECTION  VI:  “(applicant’s)  no-nonsense
leadership style motivates other – send  to  ISS  and  challenge  with
command.”  SECTION VII: “A real asset to  7AF  -  site  commander  for
first deployment  of  EMT  –  proved  a  capability  to  provide  CINC
increased missile defense lead time and better  missile  launch/impact
info – command ready!  Send to  ISS!”   She  sincerely  believes  that
after careful consideration of all the evidence  provided,  the  Board
will be overwhelmingly convinced that there was blatant  disregard  of
Air Force regulations to further the career of another  officer  which
was due cause for this miscarriage of justice.  Again, in the interest
of justice, she implores the Board to please approve  the  removal  of
these unjust OPRs from her Air Force personnel records.   The  Board’s
approval will be deeply appreciated and will  restore  her  confidence
and faith in the military justice system.

Applicant's  complete  response,  with  attachments,  is  attached  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.    Sufficient relevant evidence has been presented  to  demonstrate
the existence of probable error or injustice  warranting  voidance  of
the Officer Performance Report (OPR) for the period  31  January  1997
through 18 June 1997 and Special  Selection  Board  consideration  for
promotion to the grade of major.   After  reviewing  the  evidence  of
record, we believe the OPR closing 18 June 1997  is  not  an  accurate
assessment of the applicant’s performance.  We note that the applicant
submitted an Inspector General complaint  and  that  two  of  the  six
allegations  were  substantiated.   The  applicant  has  submitted   a
statement from Colonel J---, the investigating officer,  stating  that
during his investigation many of her subordinates confirmed  that  she
was doing an outstanding job and the commander did not  do  everything
he  could  to  ensure  she  had  all  the  resources  required  to  be
successful.  He further states that the contested OPRs do not  reflect
the  applicant’s  job  performance  as  described  to   him   by   her
peers/subordinates.  The applicant also submits a statement
from Colonel B---, Commander,  607th  Air  Support  Operations  Group,
Seventh Air Force, stating that  the  applicant  was  his  number  one
choice to lead the first deployment of a new radar to track  ballistic
missiles in Korea and that her leadership is flawless.  Therefore, the
Board recommends the report closing out 18 June 1997 be declared  void
and removed from her records and that she be considered for  promotion
to the grade of  major  by  Special  Selection  Board  for  the  CY98B
selection board.

4.    Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate
the existence of probable error or injustice  warranting  voidance  of
the Officer Performance Report for the period 14 May 1996  through  30
January 1997.  While the previous mentioned statements  appear  to  be
recommending voidance of the OPR closing 30 January 1997, we  are  not
persuaded this report should be voided.  The  statements  on  the  OPR
closing 30 January 1997 appears to  be  lauding  her  performance  and
contains  strong  comments  in  addition  to  statements  recommending
attendance at intermediate  service  school.   Therefore,  we  do  not
recommend voidance of the OPR for the period 14 May  1996  through  30
January 1997.

_________________________________________________________________

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  31
January 1997 through 18 June 1997 be declared void  and  removed  from
her record.

It is further recommended that she be considered for promotion to  the
grade of major by Special Selection  Board  for  the  CY98B  selection
board.

_________________________________________________________________

The following members of the  Board  considered  this  application  in
Executive Session on 30 March 1999, under the provisions  of  AFI  36-
2603:

            Ms. Martha Maust, Panel Chair
            Ms. Sophie A. Clark, Member
            Dr. Gerald B. Kauvar, Member
            Ms. Gloria J. Williams, Examiner (without vote)

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

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 17 December 1998, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPA, dated 20 January 1999.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 1 February 1999.
   Exhibit E.  Applicant's Response, dated 11 March 1999, w/atch.





                                   MARTHA MAUST
                                   Panel Chair





MEMORANDUM FOR   THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, AIR FORCE BOARD FOR
                   CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS (AFBCMR)

FROM: SAF/MIB

SUBJECT:    AFBCMR Case of

      I have carefully considered all the circumstances of this case,
including the rational of the Board’s recommendation to deny the
voidance of the Officer Performance Report (OPR) closing 30 January
1997.  However, I believe the OPR closing 30 January 1997 should be
voided in addition to the relief recommended by the Board.

      In arriving at my decision, I note that the statements on the
OPR closing 30 January 1997 does appear to be lauding the applicant’s
performance, however, it also appears that the OPR is filled with
subtle reasons for not promoting her.  Based upon these comments and
in an effort to provide the applicant with thorough and fitting
relief, I believe the OPR closing 30 January 1997 should be declared
void.  Accordingly, it is my decision that the contested OPR be
voided, in addition to the OPR closing 18 June 1997, and that she be
considered for promotion to the grade of major by Special Selection
Board for the Calendar Year 1998B Centeral Major Board and for any
subsequent boards in which the OPRs were a matter of record.

                                       JOE G. LINEBERGER
                                       Director
                                       Air Force Review Boards Agency







AFBCMR 98-03550




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 Reports (OPRs), AF Forms 707B, rendered for the
periods 14 May 1996 through 30 January 1997, and 31 January 1997
through 18 June 1997, be, and hereby are, declared void and removed
from her records.

      It is further directed that she be considered for promotion to
the grade of major by Special Selection Board for the Calendar Year
1998B Central Major Board and for any subsequent boards in which the
OPRs were a matter of record.




            JOE G. LINEBERGER
            Director
            Air Force Review Boards Agency