RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  98-00495
                 INDEX CODE:  131

                 COUNSEL:  FRED L. BAUER

                 HEARING DESIRED:  YES

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

1.  His promotion to the grade of master sergeant (E-7) be restored.

2.  He be reinstated to active duty with back pay and allowances.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

His career was damaged as a result  of  discrimination.   The  primary
person responsible  for  the  discrimination  was  an  Operating  Room
Supervisor,  although  others  were  influenced  by  her  (supervisor)
attitudes.   The  applicant  was   given   questionable   Letters   of
Counseling, Letters of Reprimand with an unfavorable information  file
(UIF).  A control roster action contributed to a denial of a promotion
to the grade of master sergeant.   This,  in  turn,  resulted  in  the
applicant having to retire early on 1 March 1995 because of high  year
of tenure (HYT) rules.

Applicant’s submission is attached at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant reenlisted in the Regular Air Force on 3 December 1985 for a
period of four (4) years in the grade of technical sergeant (E-6).  He
had two extensions of enlistment.

The  applicant  received  four  Letters  of   Counseling   (LOCs)   on
13 December 1993, 26 January 1994, 10 May 1994 and 10 June  1994.   He
also received a Letter of  Reprimand  (LOR)  and  was  placed  on  the
control roster, effective 12 July  1994.   Placement  on  the  control
roster automatically established an Unfavorable Information File (UIF)
on the applicant.

The applicant was selected  for  promotion  to  the  grade  of  master
sergeant (E-7) during  the  95A7  promotion  cycle  with  a  Promotion
Sequence Number (PSN) 00071.0 which would  have  been  incremented  on
1 August 1994.  However, when the applicant was placed on the  control
roster on 12 July 1994, it rendered him ineligible for  promotion  for
cycle 95A7.

The applicant was forced to separate due to being at his High Year  of
Tenure (HYT - the maximum amount of time he could be in the Air  Force
in his grade).

Applicant was released from  active  duty  on  28  February  1995  and
honorably retired on 1 March 1995 under the provisions of AFR  36-3203
(Voluntary Retirement:  Maximum Service or Time In Grade).  He  served
20 years, 4 months and 24 days of active military service.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The Chief, Commander’s Programs Branch,  HQ  AFPC/DPSFC,  states  that
counseling helps people use good judgment, assume responsibility,  and
face and solve their problems.   Counselors  (commanders,  supervisors
and other persons in  authority)  help  subordinates  develop  skills,
attitudes, and behaviors that are consistent with maintaining the  Air
Force’s readiness.  The AF Form 174, Record of  Individual  Counseling
(RIC) documents  a  counseling  session  and  provides  a  record  for
performance evaluations.  Letters of counseling may be  filed  in  the
UIF by themselves or as an attachment to another document.

The use of the Letter of Reprimand (LOR) by commanders and supervisors
is an exercise of supervisory authority and responsibility.   The  LOR
is used to reprove, correct and instruct subordinates who depart  from
acceptable norms of conduct or behavior, on or  off  duty,  and  helps
maintain established Air Force standards of conduct  or  behavior.   A
reprimand is a stronger degree of official censure than a  counseling.


The 12 July 1994 LOR cited AFR 35-9, the military leave regulation and
reprimanded  the  applicant  for  failing  to  get   his   commander’s
permission  to  take  leave  outside  the  continental  United  States
(CONUS).  However, AFI 36-3003, Military Leave Program, was in  effect
at the time the applicant took his leave.  The AFI advises  commanders
to ensure members applying for leave in a foreign country comply  with
foreign government procedures as required by the Department of Defense
(DOD) Foreign Clearance Guide and security procedures  prescribed  for
visits  to communist or communist-controlled countries.  The  AFI  did
not specifically state the applicant needed his  commander’s  approval
to go overseas.  It  allows  commanders  to  delegate  leave  approval
authority to first line supervisors.  The applicant intended  to  take
his family to Germany via Military Air, leave his  wife  and  daughter
there for a visit, and  return  home  without  them.   His  dependents
decided to return home with the applicant.  Due to the  difficulty  in
obtaining  a  return  flight  to  CONUS,  the  applicant  called   his
supervisor to request a leave extension that was approved.

Control rosters are used by commanders to set a six-month  observation
period for individuals whose duty performance is  substandard  or  who
fail to meet or maintain Air Force standards of conduct.  UIFs may  be
used by commanders to form the basis for a variety of adverse  actions
as they relate to the member’s conduct, bearing,  behavior,  integrity
and so forth, or less than acceptable  duty  performance.   Commanders
have the option to remove an enlisted member’s UIF early.

AFPC/DPSFC  states  that  the  applicant’s  supporting   documentation
attests that the applicant’s supervisor made racial  slurs  about  the
applicant, told lies abut him and, that the supervisor  and  commander
were “best of friends.”  Given the applicant’s duty section’s climate,
AFPC/DPSFC is concerned that the applicant may have been  targeted  by
his supervisor,  and  punished/reprimanded  for  actions  that  others
routinely do without ramifications.

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


The Chief, Inquiries/AFBCMR Section,  Enlisted  Promotion  &  Military
Testing Branch, HQ AFPC/DPPPWB, states that if the  AFBCMR  voids  the
applicant’s placement on the Control Roster, which was the  basis  for
his ineligibility for promotion to the grade of master  sergeant,  and
he is otherwise qualified, he would be entitled to restoration of  his
grade.  Only the placement on the  Control  Roster  renders  a  member
automatically ineligible for promotion.  If the Board  determines  the
applicant should have been promoted 1 August 1994, he would  not  have
completed the two year active duty service commitment  (ADSC)  at  the
time of retirement on 1 March 1995.

A copy of the Air Force evaluation, with attachment,  is  attached  at
Exhibit D.

The Retirement  Branch,  HQ  AFPC/DPPRR,  states  that  if  the  Board
determines the applicant should have been promoted  to  the  grade  of
master sergeant effective 1 August 1994, he would have incurred a two-
year ADSC of 31 July 1996.  Additionally, by  being  promoted  to  the
grade of master sergeant, applicant’s High Year of Tenure (HYT)  would
be 24 years of active service, giving him a HYT  date  of  1  November
1998.  If the Board promotes the  applicant  to  master  sergeant  and
determines the 1 March 1995 retirement date  will  remain  in  effect,
applicant will be retired in the grade  of  master  sergeant  and  the
unserved portion of the two-year ADSC will be waived.

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

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded  to  the  applicant
and counsel on 22 June 1998 for review and response.   Counsel  states
that it is the hope that the Board will accept the suggestions of  the
Air Force evaluations and grant the applicant  the  requested  relief.
The applicant is willing to serve the remaining months to complete his
HYT to 1 November 1998.

Counsel’s and Applicant’s responses are attached at Exhibit G.

_________________________________________________________________

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 complete submission, we  are
not persuaded that his promotion  to  the  grade  of  master  sergeant
should be restored or that he should be reinstated to active duty with
back pay and allowances.  All  of  his  contentions  are  duly  noted;
however, we do not  find  these  assertions,  in  and  by  themselves,
sufficiently  persuasive  to  favorably   consider   the   applicant’s
requests.  We note that the Chief,  Commander’s  Programs  Branch,  HQ
AFPC//DPSFC, believes that approval of the applicant’s requests may be
appropriate based on a review of the Letters of Counseling  (LOC)  and
Letters of Reprimand (LOR).  However, we do not  agree.   On  reaching
our conclusions, we considered the following:


    a.  The  applicant  is  alleging  that  his  Operating  Room  (OR)
supervisor was discriminating against him.   He  submits  a  statement
from a coworker who attests that applicant’s  supervisor  made  racial
slurs about him (applicant) to others and also told  lies  about  him.
However, this statement does not prove there was  discrimination.   It
is the opinion of the coworker.  If  the  applicant  believed  he  was
being discriminated against, he should have filed a Social Actions  or
Inspector  General  (IG)  complaint.   Other   than   the   coworker’s
statement, there is no additional evidence that  indicates  there  was
discrimination against the applicant.

    b.  With regard to  the  Letters  of  Counseling  and  Letters  of
Reprimand the applicant contends were questionable,  it  appears  that
for approximately a period of a year he was  having  problems  in  the
performance of his duties.  The applicant  alleges  that  the  primary
person responsible was his operating  room  supervisor.   However,  we
note that the Letters of Counseling and the Letters of Reprimand  were
administered by several different  supervisors.   The  control  roster
action, along with the applicant’s removal from  the  master  sergeant
promotion list, was administered by the 14th Medical Group  Commander.
Therefore, it does  not  appear  that  there  was  one  person  solely
responsible for the counselings  and  reprimands  that  the  applicant
received.  In view of the above and absent persuasive evidence to  the
contrary, we find that applicant has failed to sustain his  burden  of
establishing  the  existence  of  either  an  error  or  an  injustice
warranting favorable action on these requests.”

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 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 15 April 1999, under the provisions  of  AFI  36-
2603.

                  Mr. Richard A. Peterson, Panel Chair
                  Mr. Gregory W. Den Herder, Member
                  Mr. Grover L. Dunn, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 12 February 1998, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant's Available Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPSFC, dated 30 Apr 98.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPPWB, dated 6 May 98.
   Exhibit E.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPRR, dated 9 Jun 98.
   Exhibit F.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 22 Jun 98.
   Exhibit G.  Counsel’s Letter, dated 29 Jul 98, w/atch.




                                   RICHARD A. PETERSON
                                   Panel Chair