RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  99-01266
            INDEX CODE:  107.00, 111.02,
                         131.00, 100.00

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO


APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

l.  He be promoted to senior master sergeant (E-8),  with  a  date  of
rank (DOR) of 1 Jan 98, and a line number to chief master sergeant (E-
9) for the year 2000.

2.  His Enlisted Performance Reports (EPRs), closing  14  Jun  96  and
14 Jun 97, be revised or declared void and removed from his records.

3.  He be awarded a Meritorious Service Medal (MSM) for  his  work  on
the Combat Arms Training and Maintenance Range at Vandenberg AFB,  CA,
for four years (1993-1997).

4.  The duty title for his Air Force Commendation  Medal,  with  Third
Oak Leaf Cluster (AFCM w/3OLC), for the period 12 Jul 93 to 15 Jul  97
be corrected to read “Combat Arms  Manager”  instead  of  “NCOIC”  and
include the fact that he “caught the murderer.”

5.  He be reinstated back into the Security Forces Career Field as Law
Enforcement.

6.  The personnel he has identified should  be  held  accountable  for
their involvement in various reprisal actions against him as  well  as
any other illegal activity identified in his appeal.

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

His records are in error or unjust due to several actions of  reprisal
taken against him during a two-year period while he was  stationed  at
Vandenberg  AFB,  CA.   These  stem  originally  from   his   Mar   96
communication with base level safety officials concerning  the  safety
of the  base’s  firing  range,  known  as  the  Combat  Arms  Training
Maintenance Range (CATMR).   He  was  subsequently  removed  from  his
position as CATMR manager by his commander in May 96 and reassigned to
another position with the security police squadron.

He filed two Inspector General (IG) complaints, one in Jul 96 and  the
second in May 97, to both DoD/IG and his base IG office.  The first IG
complaint contained six allegations, five of  which  entailed  various
fraud, waste and abuse charges, as well as safety concerns relating to
the CATMR and  one  allegation  that  his  removal  as  CATMR  manager
violated the Military Whistleblowers  Protection  Act.   The  base  IG
conducted an investigation of these allegations and substantiated  two
of  his  range  safety  allegations,  but  considered   the   reprisal
allegation  unsubstantiated.   The  Report  of   Investigation   (ROI)
determined that his removal  as  CATMR  manager  was  not  an  act  of
reprisal by his commander in response to his  communication  with  the
base safety officials.  Subsequent reviews by both the  major  command
and the Air  Force  IG  reversed  this  subordinate  finding  of  non-
reprisal, instead substantiating the reprisal allegation.  In Dec  97,
DoD/IG concurred with the final  Air  Force  conclusion  that  he  was
removed from his  position  as  CATMR  manager  in  reprisal  for  his
protected communications to the wing safety office.

The second IG outlined 12 allegations, reiterating many  of  the  same
charges concerning environmental, safety, and fraud, waste  and  abuse
violations that he had made  in  his  first  IG  complaint.   He  also
alleged continued acts of reprisal by  his  commander,  stemming  from
both the same May 96 communications with base safety officials and  in
retaliation for his first IG complaint.  He  considers  the  personnel
actions taken  against  him  as  reprisal-related;  i.e.,  his  intra-
squadron assignments since his removal as CATMR manager, the  validity
of his senior Enlisted Performance Reports (EPRs) closing  15  Jun  96
and 14 Jun 97, the award of an AFCM instead of a MSM for his  “end-of-
tour” decoration for the period Jul 93-Jul 97, and the  status  of  an
MSM package outlining his work as CATMR manager.  The 30th Space  Wing
(SW)/IG investigated the charges and  found  all  of  his  allegations
unsubstantiated.  DOD/IG reached a final conclusion  that  no  further
acts of reprisal were committed  after  applicant’s  wrongful  removal
from his CATMR manager position in May 96.

He feels that both IG  investigations  are  “incomplete”  because  the
investigators  did  not  interview  certain  witnesses  he  feels  are
critical and has outlined why he deems the IG investigations faulty.

In support of his request, the applicant submits a personal statement,
with copies of his IG complaints and additional  documents  associated
with the  issues  cited  in  his  contentions.   These  documents  are
appended at Exhibit A.

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant contracted his initial enlistment in the Regular  Air  Force
on 12 Oct 79.  He has been progressively  promoted  to  the  grade  of
master sergeant (E-7), with an effective date and date of  rank  of  1
May 94.

The following is a resume of the applicant’s EPR ratings subsequent to
his promotion to that grade.

            Period Ending    Evaluation

              30 Jan 95      5 - Immediate Promotion
              14 Jun 95      5
            * 14 Jun 96      5
            * 14 Jun 97      5
              14 Jun 98      5
              14 Jun 99      5

* Contested reports

The applicant was awarded the Air Force Commendation Medal, Third  Oak
Leaf Cluster, for meritorious service from 12 Jul 93 to 15 Jul 97

The relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the
letters prepared by the appropriate Air Force  offices.   Accordingly,
there is no need to recite these facts in this Record of Proceedings.

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The Recognition  Programs  Branch,  HQ  AFPC/DPPPR,  stated  that  the
applicant was assigned to the  30th  Security  Police  Squadron  (SPS)
initially as an Installation Patrolman on 12 Jul 93 and in Jan 94,  he
became a Flight Sergeant.  Applicant’s  Enlisted  Performance  Reports
(EPRs) reflect his duty titles as follows: (a)  Combat  Arms  Training
and Maintenance Section Manager, Jan 95-May  96.   (b)  Subsequent  to
that time, he was Flight Sergeant  until  his  departure  in  Jul  97.
Applicant’s Duty History Brief (RIP) reflects he was  an  Installation
Patrolman at Vandenberg during the period 12 Jul  93-31  Dec  95,  and
Combat Arms Training and Maintenance Section Manager during the period
1 Jan 95-31 Jul 97.

DPPPR believes the applicant meant to request that his AFCM w/3OLC  be
upgraded to the MSM, not that he receive the MSM solely for his duties
as Combat Arms Training and  Maintenance  Section  Manager.   However,
DPPPR is unable to verify applicant’s eligibility for the MSM.   There
is no indication  in  any  of  the  documentation  provided  that  the
applicant was ever recommended for an MSM.  The IG Report  stated  the
applicant’s supervisor prepared a mid-term MSM recommendation  package
at the applicant’s request, but concern regarding  the  level  of  the
decoration and the applicant’s  limited  time  in  the  CATM  position
caused him to ultimately submit a recommendation for the AFCM.   DPPPR
found no indication in the applicant’s records  that  he  “caught  the
murderer” and he provided no documentation to substantiate this claim.

DPPPR recommended disapproval of the applicant’s request for award  of
the MSM and his request to include the fact that he caught a  murderer
in his AFCM 3OLC.

DPPPR recommended approval of the applicant’s request  to  delete  the
duty title of NCOIC and include the duty title “Combat  Arms  Training
and Maintenance Section Manager” on the citation  for  his  AFCM  3OLC
based on the applicant’s EPR duty history.

A complete copy of this evaluation is appended at Exhibit C.


The Enlisted Promotion &  Military  Testing  Branch,  HQ  AFPC/DPPPWB,
stated that present Air Force policy does not allow for  an  automatic
promotion as the applicant is requesting.  DPPPWB indicated  that  the
first time the contested report, closing 14 Jun 96, was considered  in
the promotion process was Cycle 97E8 to senior master sergeant  (E-8),
promotions effective Apr 97 - Mar  98.   Should  the  Board  void  the
report in its entirety or make any other significant change, providing
he  is  otherwise  eligible,  the  applicant  will  be   entitled   to
supplemental promotion consideration commencing with Cycle 97E8.

DPPPWB stated that the first time the contested report, closing 14 Jun
97, was considered in the promotion process was Cycle 98E8  to  senior
master sergeant (E-8), promotions effective Apr 98 - Mar  99.   Should
the  Board  void  the  report  in  its  entirety  or  make  any  other
significant change, providing he is otherwise eligible, the  applicant
will be entitled to supplemental  promotion  consideration  commencing
with Cycle 98E8.

With respect to applicant’s request for  upgrade  of  his  decoration,
DPPPWB indicated that a decoration that is upgraded  after  selections
have been made for a particular cycle does not  automatically  entitle
the member to supplemental promotion consideration.

DPPPWB stated there  are  no  provisions  to  authorize  an  automatic
promotion to E-8 or E-9 nor do they recommend this  be  done.   Should
the Board revise or void the applicant’s contested EPRs, he  would  be
entitled to supplemental promotion consideration beginning with  cycle
97E8.  Should the applicant be authorized an additional decoration  by
the Board, a determination would  be  made  as  to  what  supplemental
promotion consideration he may be entitled.

A complete copy of this evaluation is appended at Exhibit D.

The Appeals and  SSB  Branch,  HQ  AFPC/DPPPA,  stated  the  applicant
contends that as a  result  of  a  protected  communication  regarding
weapon  range  safety,  the  evaluators  reprised   against   him   as
demonstrated on the  contested  Enlisted  Performance  Reports  (EPRs)
closing 14 Jun 96 and 17 Jun 97.   DPPPA  indicated  that  the  second
DoD/IG complaint in May 97, contending further reprisal alleging  that
his command denied him an MSM, downgraded  his  14  Jun  97  EPR,  and
assigned  him  to  an  inappropriate  position,  for   the   protected
communication  to  the  IG  and  wing  safety   officials,   did   not
substantiate the applicant was the victim of continued  reprisal.   It
was established  that  responsible  officials  would  have  taken  the
personnel actions in  question  absent  his  protected  communications
based on his performance.  While the applicant  specifically  requests
removal of the 14 Jun 96 EPR, DPPPA noted that the  entire  appeal  is
centered around the contested 14 Jun 97 EPR.  DPPPA finds no technical
flaws with the 14 Jun 96 EPR.  Without any substantiation to prove the
EPR is inaccurate as written, DPPPA recommended denial of the  request
to void the 14 Jun 96 EPR.  Based on the findings by the DoD/IG, DPPPA
cannot support voiding either of the contested EPRs (Exhibit E).


The Staff Judge Advocate, HQ AFPC/JA, stated that in Dec 95, the  30th
Space Wing Security Police Squadron commander appointed the  applicant
as Combat Arms Training Maintenance Range (CATMR) manager.  On  1  Mar
96, applicant spoke  with  wing  safety  officials  regarding  several
violations of Air  Force  instructions  on  firing  range  safety  and
design.  These officials closed down the ranges in question on  9  May
96 and the applicant was  removed  from  CATMR  manager  position  and
assigned as a Flight Sergeant by the commander on 13 May 96.

On 9 Jul 96, applicant filed  a  complaint  of  six  allegations  with
DoD/IG and 30 SW/IG (his base level inspector general  office).   Five
of the allegations concerned range safety  and  mismanagement  issues,
while one charged that applicant’s removal as CATMR manager was an act
of reprisal in violation of  the  Military  Whistleblowers  Protection
Act.  An investigation was conducted,  concluding  with  a  report  of
investigation dated 30 Jul 96, which found one allegation of  reprisal
unsubstantiated and two of the five  range  safety  and  mismanagement
allegations  substantiated.   The  subsequent   DoD/IG   determination
reversed the conclusions and found the applicant was removed from  his
position as CATMR manager in reprisal for his protected communications
to the wing safety office.

In the interim, applicant remained in the position of flight  sergeant
within the security police squadron, rotating among  four  flights  in
one year.  Applicant’s annual EPR was written in the spring  of  1996,
his first covering duties performed subsequent to his removal as CATMR
manager.  The EPR covering the period 15 Jun 96 to 14 Jun 97 prompted,
in part, applicant’s second IG complaint.   Applicant’s  end  of  tour
medal was written during this same period, covering  the  period  from
Jul 93 to Jul 97.  It was submitted as  an  AFCM  instead  of  an  MSM
during this time, and was interpreted as subsequent reprisal action by
the applicant as well.  As a consequence,  on  16  May  97,  applicant
filed a second IG complaint consisting of 12 allegations,  several  of
which claimed further actions of reprisal in violation of the Military
Whistleblowers Protection Act. An investigation was conducted  from  5
Jun 97 to 27 Jun 97 by the 30 SW/IG and was found  unsubstantiated  by
the investigating officer  and  all  subsequent  reviewers,  including
DoD/IG.  It was concluded that applicant, beyond the initial  reprisal
action of his removal as CATMR manager in May 96, did not  suffer  any
subsequent reprisal by his commander  nor  members  of  his  chain  of
command, and his entire second package was without merit.

Upon reviewing this case, JA found an error of law.   The  commander’s
removal  of  applicant  from  his  CATMR  position,  in  reprisal  for
protected  communications,  was   in   violation   of   the   Military
Whistleblower Protections Act, for  which  an  appropriate  remedy  is
discussed.  Beyond this action, however, there exists no other  errors
of law.  Both IG investigations were completed in accordance with  the
parameters set forth under AFI 90-301 as well as DoD Directive 7050.6.
 JA stated that the premise of applicant’s letter  to  this  Board  is
essentially  that  both  IG  investigations  were  flawed  and   hence
“incomplete” simply because they did not substantiate the majority  of
his allegations.  Three separate investigations, analyzing much of the
same circumstances, were conducted and the proper reviews performed at
the major command and headquarters levels that  did  examine  all  the
“evidence.”

JA found no legal  error  in  applicant’s  contested  evaluations  and
reports.  JA  agrees with HQ AFPC/DPPPA’s recommendation to disapprove
the applicant’s evaluation requests.  Applicant  asks  that  his  EPRs
closing 14 Jun 96 and 14 Jun 97 be voided  on  the  grounds  that  his
commander’s  reprisal  action  unjustly  influenced  these   contested
reports.  However, no documentation has been provided to  substantiate
any inaccuracy in his 14 Jun 96 EPR and there are no  technical  flaws
existent in said evaluation.  JA agrees with DPPPA’s  assessment  that
applicant’s 14 Jun 96 EPR is valid as written.  JA  reaches  the  same
conclusion regarding applicant’s requested relief  concerning  the  14
Jun 97 EPR.  The findings by the DoD/IG’s  supplemental  investigation
substantiate their final conclusion that,  “explanations  provided  by
responsible officials for the ratings they gave  were  reasonable  and
supported  by  written  documentation.”   This   supplemental   review
included interviews  of  witnesses  not  previously  interviewed,  and
verified that the adverse counseling sessions  and  harsh  performance
feedback sessions cited by the rating officials  did  in  fact  exist.
These explanations sufficiently justify that  the  contested  EPR  was
based on applicant’s performance and attitude, and not in reprisal for
any protected disclosures.  Hence, his EPR, as  written,  is  accurate
and relief should be denied.

Concerning  applicant’s  decoration  requests,  JA  agrees   with   HQ
AFPC/DPPPR’s ultimate  recommendation  that  applicant’s  request  for
award of an MSM, either solely for his work as  Combat  Arms  Training
and  Maintenance  Section  Manager,  or  for  his  complete  tour   at
Vandenberg AFB, CA, should be  denied.   However,  JA  disagrees  with
DPPPR’s assessment that although applicant specifically requests award
of an MSM for his “four  years’  work”  as  CATMR  manager,  applicant
actually meant to request that his end of tour AFCM with 3OLC  instead
be upgraded to the MSM.  Instead, it seems that  he  actually  desires
both an upgrade to his AFCM and an MSM solely  for  his  one  year  of
duties as CATMR Section Manager, or at least a correction to his  AFCM
to reflect the proper duty title and the separate MSM.

In the applicant’s second IG complaint package, he  mentioned  a  mid-
tour MSM package that was prepared at his request and not  pursued  by
his chain of command because they decided that a  decoration  was  not
warranted for that period  alone  and  would  instead  be  covered  in
applicant’s end of tour medal.  No reprisal was found in  this  action
by DoD/IG, and JA concurs and recommends that applicant’s request  for
this separate medal should be denied.

Concerning the award of an AFCM instead of an MSM for his end of  tour
medal, contrary to the wing level investigation  officer’s  conclusion
that the AFCM was  appropriate  simply  because  similar  awards  were
awarded to others, JA indicated that the medal was appropriate because
applicant’s raters based it on reasonable and sufficient  criteria  in
accordance with AFI 36-2803.  JA concurs with the DoD/IG’s  conclusion
that the responsible officials “satisfactorily  explained  that  their
recommendation of an AFCM was based on applicant’s performance.”

JA also agreed with  DPPPR’s  recommendation  to  approve  applicant’s
request to correct the duty title on the AFCM 3OLC citation, dated  15
Jul 97.

With regard to applicant’s request for promotion, JA  agrees  with  HQ
AFPC/DPPPWB’s assessments that should the Board void or modify  either
of the contested EPRs, the applicant would be entitled to supplemental
promotion consideration, but not to any  automatic  promotion.   Also,
should the Board authorize  an  additional  decoration  or  modify  an
existing  one,  this  does  not  automatically  entitle  applicant  to
supplemental  promotion  consideration.   JA  agrees   with   DPPPAB’s
recommendation of disapproval of the applicant’s  request  to  include
the fact  that  “he  caught  the  murderer”  in  his  AFCM  3OLC.   No
documentation has been provided to substantiate this claim, and  there
is no mention of this incident in his previous IG complaint packages.

As JA indicated, the  applicant  was  wronged,  in  violation  of  the
Military Whistleblower Protection Act in May  96  when  his  commander
removed  him  from  his  position  as  CATMR  manager.    While   this
constitutes legal error, applicant has failed to demonstrate that this
action rises to the level of an injustice that warrants  relief  -  at
least not in the form of modifying his evaluations and  reports.   The
requests applicant submits to this  Board,  except  for  two,  involve
personnel actions that have been adequately  explained  and  justified
based on applicant’s duty performance subsequent to the reprisal.  The
contested reports and decorations are the consequences of  applicant’s
behavior, thus breaking the chain linking them to the illegal removal.
 Applicant fails to show that any further reprisal  actions  had  been
committed.

JA stated that whether this error should be remedied via granting  the
applicant’s  remaining  request  for  “reinstatement  back  into   the
Security Forces Career Field  as  Law  Enforcement”  is  difficult  to
assess.  At the time  of  the  reprisal,  applicant  was  moved  to  a
position commensurate with his rank, received no further reprisal, and
was treated justly for the remainder of his tenure at Vandenberg  AFB.
He then voluntarily retrained into the communications career field, is
now assigned to a  communications  squadron  at  Minot  AFB,  ND,  and
currently requests a return to the security forces arena.   Under  all
the circumstances of the case, JA could not say that such action would
be inappropriate, although they find it a  stretch  to  say  that  the
situation  complained  of  has  caused  applicant  a  true  error   or
injustice.

JA recommended the applicant’s request to change his duty title in his
AFCM 3OLC be granted.  A complete copy of this evaluation is  appended
at Exhibit F.

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS:

The applicant reviewed the advisory opinions and indicated that he  is
challenging various assessments of his case  and  the  view  that  his
second case is without merit.   He  holds  that  his  first  case,  if
investigated  properly,  would  show  several  reasons  to  call  into
question anything his commander said  about  him.   He  is  submitting
numerous statements to support his argument,  but  the  facts  are  if
anyone were to speak to all of the witnesses he identified as well  as
properly questioned his reprising leaders, his case  would  have  long
since been over.  The damage to both his career and personal life  can
never be fully measured and restored to their proper state.

His  argument  with  the  HQ  AFPC/JA  advisory  writer  consists   of
statements and questions.  He was in the rater’s office,  (14  Jun  97
EPR) in Jan 97 when the rater told him about “No  MSM,  no  promotable
position due to his CATM situation (threatened and  actual  reprisal).
Within days after the meeting, he was assaulted, which never made  the
SP Blotter and never prompted a report.  Within days, he  was  working
for someone he outranked on another flight and was given two different
stories as the reason for his transfer.  The day of  his  firing,  his
rater, (14 Jun 96 EPR) offered him a chance to get a good EPR, his MSM
and possibly his dream job of Fish & Wildlife if only  he  went  along
quietly.  According to information he received,  the  following,  then
30th SPS members all had one or more confirmed  case  of  either  DUI,
Child Neglect or Racial Slurs in Control Rosters/UIFs,  yet  they  all
received  MSMs.   Two  of  the  individuals  received   placement   in
promotable positions, ultimately getting promoted, yet  his  commander
said the 30th  SPS  would  never  allow  persons  possessing  negative
information in their  PIF  to  receive  an  MSM  or  be  placed  in  a
promotable position.  XXXX wrote his 14 Jun 97 EPR  when  he  did  not
even know who his supervisor was.

The DoD/IG  originally  professed  to  have  accomplished  a  thorough
investigation, but since he challenged their assertion (he showed them
the definition  of  the  word  investigation),  they  now  claim  they
conducted supplemental interviews and reviews of documents.  There  is
no way two or three interviews took 19 and 24 months  respectively  to
complete!  The assertion of thorough investigation, HAS NO MERIT!  His
complaints speak for his sense of an integrity problem  he  feels  the
rater has.  He has provided a list of a dozen or so  fact  or  fiction
issues as they pertain to his commander.

His charges of assault were ignored.  His supervisors, who  wrote  the
feedbacks, were the same people who he charged with numerous  improper
deeds.  He did not get his MSM because his superiors lied, others with
confirmed DUIs and racial slurs, etc., did receive  an  MSM.   How  is
this possible?  Though Flight Sergeant was commensurate with his rank,
why was he  repeatedly  placed  under  junior  ranking  MSgts  and  on
occasion fell under TSgts?  Finally, for mismanagement of ATS  (Fraud,
Waste & Abuse) and all the reprisal actions against him, at the  least
his commander should be held accountable by the Secretary of  the  Air
Force as he was instructed would be the case when he first  complained
and the process started three years ago.

His argument with the  assessment  from  HQ  AFPC/DPPPWB  is  that  if
provided supplemental board consideration for promotion, how would  it
be possible to assess his work fairly when so many lies have been told
and all of  his  hard  work  has  been  accomplished  under  the  most
difficult of circumstances?  He was told he would be  protected  under
the Military Whistleblower Protection Act.

His argument with the assessment from HQ AFPC/DPPPR, consists  of  his
belief that he does deserve an MSM and he can show for the EPR  rating
period covering his CATM tenure, he did more than  enough  to  qualify
for an MSM (see Atch 5).  Information supplied by  a  witness  to  his
actions at a murder scene lend credence to his claim of “catching  the
murderer” (see Atch 6).

In support of his request, the applicant submits additional  documents
associated with the issues cited in his appeal.  Applicant’s  complete
response is appended at Exhibit H.

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  injustice  concerning  the  contested  Enlisted
Performance Reports and the duty title on  the  citation  accompanying
the Air Force Commendation Medal, Third Oak Leaf Cluster.  With regard
to correcting the second duty title on the  aforementioned  Air  Force
Commendation Medal (AFCM), we are in agreement with  the  opinion  and
recommendation of the respective Air Force offices (HQ AFPC/DPPPR  and
HQ AFPC/JA) that the evidence supports correcting the  duty  title  as
indicated below.  The applicant asserts that  the  contested  Enlisted
Performance Reports (EPRs) represent a continuation  of  the  reprisal
found to have existed by the IG.  In this respect, we  note  that  the
second DOD IG inquiry did not substantiate the  applicant’s  assertion
of  subsequent  reprisal.   However,  after  reviewing  the  contested
reports, the evidence provided, and the EPRs  the  applicant  received
prior to the time the reprisal was  found  to  have  taken  place,  we
disagree.  While the reports are not so negative that it is evident on
their face that they constitute reprisal, we have no  way  of  knowing
what impact the applicant’s protected communications may have  had  on
his subsequent evaluations.  In addition, these  reports  continue  to
represent a less than favorable image of the applicant’s  performance,
and, are sufficiently different from the reports he received prior  to
the time the initial reprisal action took place for us to doubt  their
accuracy.  We therefore believe that the applicant should be given the
benefit of the doubt and the contested reports should be removed  from
his records and do so recommend.  While the applicant desires a direct
promotion to senior master sergeant by this Board, we are not inclined
to favorably  consider  a  request  for  promotion  to  senior  master
sergeant, retroactive to 1 Jan 98, and a follow-on promotion to  chief
master sergeant without using the supplemental process.   Our  opinion
in this matter is based on the fact that  the  individuals  performing
the supplemental considerations have tools available, to which  we  do
not  have  access,  which  allow  them  to  reach   a   more   precise
determination concerning the applicant’s promotability.  Therefore, we
recommend  that  the  applicant  be  provided  supplemental  promotion
consideration for all appropriate cycles  for  which  the  now  voided
reports were a matter of record.  By this action, the Board finds  the
applicant will be afforded proper and fitting promotion  relief  based
on the removal of the contested EPRs.

4.  We have noted the DOD IG findings to the effect that the applicant
was removed from his position as CATMR Manager  in  reprisal  for  his
protected communications to the wing safety  office.   We  agree  with
JA’s observation that the impact of  this  reprisal  is  difficult  to
assess based on the fact that at some time after his removal from  the
subject  position,  the  applicant  voluntarily  retrained  into   the
communications career field.   There  is  nothing  in  the  record  to
suggest that his decision in this  regard  was  coerced  in  any  way.
Since there appears to be no bar to his reentering the Security Forces
Career Field, we believe administrative relief  is  available  to  the
applicant in this matter by his submission of a request to reenter the
Security Forces Career Field.  For these  reasons  and  based  on  the
available evidence, we are not  inclined  to  favorably  consider  his
request for reinstatement in his former caeer field at this time.

5.  Notwithstanding the above, we  are  unpersuaded  by  the  evidence
presented that the citation to accompany the  Air  Force  Commendation
Medal (AFCM) should include the requested statement  that  he  “caught
the murderer” or that award of a Meritorious Service  Medal  (MSM)  is
warranted.  With regard  to  the  AFCM  citation,  we  note  that  the
statement from a former Law Enforcement First Sergeant  clarifies  the
events that transpired on 31 Jul 93 concerning  an  apparent  stabbing
and that numerous security force  personnel  responded.   No  official
evidence has been presented to substantiate  that  the  applicant  was
solely responsible for capturing the  murderer.   Hence,  we  are  not
inclined to recommend approval of the applicant’s request  to  include
this statement.  As to  the  MSM  issue,  no  evidence  of  subsequent
reprisal was detected by the second DOD IG inquiry concerning the MSM.
 Other than  his  own  assertions,  we  are  not  persuaded  that  the
applicant met the established criteria for award of the MSM.  We  note
that the applicant’s chain of command decided that a mid-tour MSM  was
not warranted  for  that  period  and  would  instead  be  covered  in
applicant’s end of tour medal (AFCM).  Since this was a  discretionary
call, we find no basis to substitute our  judgment  for  that  of  the
commander/approval authority who  had  access  to  the  circumstances.
Therefore, in view of the findings of the DoD IG and in the absence of
substantive evidence that the commander’s actions were contrary to the
prevailing directive or otherwise constituted an abuse of  discretion,
we find no compelling basis  to  recommend  favorable  action  on  the
applicant’s request for award of the MSM.

6.  Finally, we have noted the applicant’s request that the  reprisers
be held accountable for their actions against him.   With  respect  to
this issue, the applicant is advised that, according to  this  Board’s
governing instruction, any determination on this issue is not  made  a
part of the record of  proceedings  and  will  not  be  given  to  the
applicant, but will be provided to the  Secretary  of  the  Air  Force
under  separate  cover  if   this   Board   believes   it   necessary.
Accordingly, this matter will not  be  addressed  in  this  record  of
proceedings.

THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT:

The pertinent military records of the  Department  of  the  Air  Force
relating to APPLICANT, be corrected to show that:

      a.    The second duty title on the  citation  to  accompany  the
award of the  Air  Force  Commendation  Medal,  with  Third  Oak  Leaf
Cluster, for the period 12 July 1993 to 15 July 1997, is “Combat  Arms
Manager” rather than “Noncommissioned Officer in Charge of Combat Arms
Training and Maintenance.”

      b.    The Enlisted Performance Reports, AF Forms  911,  rendered
for the periods 15 June 1995 through 14 June 1996  and  15  June  1996
through 14 June 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 senior master sergeant for
all appropriate cycles beginning with Cycle 97E8.

If selected for promotion to the grade of senior  master  sergeant  by
supplemental consideration, he be provided any additional supplemental
consideration required as a result of that selection, if applicable.

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 applicant ineligible for the promotion, such information  will  be
documented and presented to the Board for a final determination on the
individual's qualifications 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 21 October 1999, under the provisions of AFI  36-
2603:

            Mr. Henry Romo Jr., Panel Chairman
            Mr. Laurence M. Groner, Member
            Mr. Patrick R. Wheeler, Member

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

     Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 11 May 99, w/atchs.
     Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
     Exhibit C.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPPR, dated 20 May 99, w/atch.
     Exhibit D.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPPWB, dated 24 May 99.
     Exhibit E.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPPA, dated 7 Jun 99.
     Exhibit F.  Letter, HQ AFPC/JA, dated 19 Jul 99.
     Exhibit G.  Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 22 Jul 99.
     Exhibit H.  Memorandum from applicant, undated, w/atchs.




                                   HENRY ROMO JR.
                                   Panel Chair

AFBCMR 99-01266




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 APPLICANT be corrected to show that:

            a.   The second duty title on the citation to accompany
the award of the Air Force Commendation Medal, with Third Oak Leaf
Cluster, for the period 12 July 1993 to 15 July 1997, is “Combat Arms
Manager” rather than “Noncommissioned Officer in Charge of Combat Arms
Training and Maintenance.”

            b.   The Enlisted Performance Reports, AF Forms 911,
rendered for the periods 15 June 1995 through 14 June 1996 and 15 June
1996 through 14 June 1997, be, and hereby are, declared void and
removed from his records.

            It is further directed that he be provided supplemental
consideration for promotion to the grade of senior master sergeant for
all appropriate cycles beginning with Cycle 97E8.

      If selected for promotion to the grade of senior master sergeant
by supplemental consideration, he be provided any additional
supplemental consideration required as a result of that selection, if
applicable.

            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 applicant ineligible for the promotion, such information
will be documented and presented to the Board for a final
determination on the individual's qualifications 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