RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  00-00208

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

Her   nonselection    for    reenlistment    and    the    Unfavorable
Information(UIF)/Control Roster actions be rescinded; she be promoted,
with all back pay; and she be awarded the Air Force Achievement  Medal
(AFAM.

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

She provided a written complaint to the Air Force Flight  Test  Center
(AFFTC) Inspector General (IG) for an investigation.  The  allegations
involved her nonselection for  reenlistment,  the  UIF/Control  Roster
actions,  and  the  AFAM.   All  three   of   her   allegations   were
substantiated.

Her intention is to clear her record, be promoted as she  should  have
been, and be presented the medal  she  earned  in  multiple  hours  of
dedicated service.

In support of her appeal, the applicant provided a personal  statement
and a copy of her IG complaint package.

Applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the
attached AFFTC/IG Report  of  Investigation  (Exhibit C)  and  letters
prepared by the appropriate offices  of  the  Air  Force  (Exhibits  E
through G).  Accordingly, there is no need to recite  these  facts  in
this Record of Proceedings.

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The Skills Management Branch, AFPC/DPPAE,  reviewed  this  application
and recommended denial of the applicant’s request for removal  of  her
nonselection for reenlistment.

DPPAE indicated that a review of the  applicant's  military  personnel
records revealed she was nonselected for reenlistment by her commander
on 29 Apr 97, on Air Force Form 418,  Selective  Reenlistment  Program
Consideration.  On 7 May 97, she signed Section V of the AF Form  418,
stating she intended to appeal the decision.  Her appeal was denied on
27 Jun 97 and she acknowledged receipt of the appeal action on 30  Jun
97.

DPPAE noted the applicant’s contention that since the IG report stated
the unit commander's comments were inappropriate, the nonselection for
reenlistment is no longer a valid action. However, DPPAE  stated  that
the IG report also indicated that the  former  group  commander  would
have still nonselected her for reenlistment based on her deteriorating
performance.  Further, since the  AF  Form  418  was  finalized  after
completion of the extension documents, there was no  conflict  between
the two actions and entirely in  accordance  with  Air  Force  policy.
According to DPPAE, it was within the commander's authority  to  allow
her to obtain the service retainability for the  permanent  change  of
station (PCS) but not select her for reenlistment.

In  DPPAE’s  opinion,  although  the  commander’s  comments  were  not
appropriate as the IG report stated,  they  believe  his  decision  to
nonselect the applicant for reenlistment was still justified based  on
her  substandard  record  of  performance  and  not  meeting  military
standards.

A complete copy of the DPPAE evaluation is at Exhibit D.

The Enlisted  Promotion  and  Military  Testing  Branch,  AFPC/DPPPWB,
reviewed this application and recommended denial  of  the  applicant’s
request for promotion.

DPPPWB noted that the applicant enlisted on 20 Jul 94 in the grade  of
airman basic, was promoted to airman on 20 Jan 95 upon  completion  of
the minimum six months Time-In-Grade (TIG),  and  promoted  to  airman
first class on 20 Nov 95 when she met the  10-month  TIG  requirement.
The applicant was discharged on 19 Dec 98 upon completion of  required
active service (4 years and  5 months)  in  the  highest  grade  held,
airman first class (E-3), effective and with a date of rank of 20  Nov
95.

According to DPPPWB, the basic eligibility criteria for  promotion  to
the grade of senior airman are 36 Months Total Active Federal Military
Service (TAFMS) and 20 months TIG (both criteria must be  met)  or  28
months  TIG,  whichever  is  satisfied  first.   Since  the  applicant
satisfied the 36 months TAFMS and 20 months TIG  first,  the  earliest
date she could have been promoted provided she was  eligible  and  had
been recommended by her commander would have been 20 Jul 97.

DPPPWB indicated that a review of the  applicant's  records  reflected
she was nonselected for reenlistment by her commander on  29  Apr  97,
placed on the Control Roster on 7 Jul 97 (expired Jan 98), and  a  UIF
was established on 7 Jul 97.  Both, nonselection for reenlistment  and
placement  on  the  Control  Roster,  are  automatic  ineligible   for
promotion  reasons  as  outlined  in  AFI  36-2502,  Airman  Promotion
Program, Table 1.1, Rules 5 and 16.  In addition to  meeting  the  TIG
and Time-In-Service (TIS) requirements for promotion, the member  must
not be ineligible for any of the reasons in AFI  36-2502,  Table  1.1,
and be recommended by the commander.  The record  did  not  contain  a
promotion order to senior airman and contained no other  evidence  she
was promoted.  The Certificate of Release  or  Discharge  from  Active
Duty (DD Form 214) has the correct rank of airman first class  with  a
date of rank and effective date of 20 Nov 95.

In summary, DPPPWB indicated that when the applicant  was  nonselected
for reenlistment by her commander on 29 Apr 97, she became  ineligible
for promotion to senior airman.  She was nonselected for  reenlistment
based on  her  substandard  record  of  performance  and  not  meeting
military standards.  In DPPPWB’s  view,  even  if  she  had  not  been
selected for reenlistment or placed on  the  Control  Roster,  it  was
unlikely that the commander would have approved  and  recommended  her
for promotion to senior airman.

A complete copy of the DPPPWB  evaluation,  with  attachments,  is  at
Exhibit E.

The Recognition Programs Branch, AFPC/DPPPR, reviewed this application
and recommended denial of applicant’s request for award of the AFAM.

DPPPR noted that the applicant served with the Honor Guard during  the
period Jan 96 to Jun 97.  During her four years in the Air Force,  the
applicant received three  Enlisted  Performance  Reports  (EPRs);  the
first was an overall “4” (out of “5”) and the second  and  third  EPRs
were “3.”  She was denied the Air Force Good  Conduct  Medal  for  the
periods 20 Jul 94 to 19 Jul 97 and 7 Jul 97 to 6 Jul 98.  She received
numerous letters  of  counseling/reprimand  pertaining  to  poor  duty
performance and two vehicular tickets resulting in suspension  of  on-
base driving privileges for five days (all  occurring  before,  during
and after her service with the Honor Guard).

According to DPPPR, Public Laws and Executive Orders set the  criteria
for awards and decorations, and each military  service  derives  their
instructions from them.  An individual should not be recommended for a
decoration if his/her entire  period  of  service  is  not  honorable.
Since the applicant's duty performance necessitated  repeated  letters
of counseling and reprimand, her off-duty performance was reflected by
suspension of her on-base driving privileges and she was denied  award
of the Air Force Good Conduct Medal for almost her  entire  period  of
service, her four years in the Air Force cannot be  considered  for  a
decoration during any part  of  her  enlistment.   Regardless  of  any
statements (true  or  false)  on  the  recommendation  paperwork,  the
applicant could not be considered for a decoration by her commander.

A complete copy of  the  DPPPR  evaluation,  with  attachment,  is  at
Exhibit F.

The Separations Branch,  AFPC/DPPRS,  reviewed  this  application  and
recommended denial.  DPPRS indicated they believe that the applicant’s
discharge  was  consistent  with  the   procedural   and   substantive
requirements of the discharge regulation.  Her DD Form  214  reflected
the correct narrative reason for separation as completion of  required
active service, and the separation  code  given  was  correct  and  in
accordance with the Department of Defense and Air Force directives.

A complete copy of the DPPRS evaluation is at Exhibit G.

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to applicant on  28
Jul 00 for review and response.  As of this date, no response has been
received by this office (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.  Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented  to  demonstrate
the existence of probable error or injustice regarding the applicant’s
request for  rescission  of  the  nonselection  for  reenlistment  and
UIF/Control Roster actions, promotion, and award of the AFAM.  We note
that the applicant filed an IG complaint alleging unfair treatment  by
her unit based on the following allegations,  which  appears  to  have
been substantiated by the IG.

      a.  First, the applicant alleged that her  commander  improperly
recommended her for an extension  one  day  and  nonselected  her  for
reenlistment the next day, pointing out that he checked the “RECOMMEND
APPROVAL” block, which  stated,  “By  recommending  approval  of  this
extension, I certify (at this time) that the airman is  qualified  and
recommended for reenlistment.  While the action may have  appeared  to
be improper, we note that there is  no  specific  restriction  against
recommending  an  individual   for   reenlistment   and   subsequently
nonselecting them within any time limits.  According to the  governing
Air Force instruction, commanders may reverse their decisions  at  any
time.  Furthermore, a review of the available  evidence  reveals  that
the commander recommended approval of the extension  to  allow  for  a
permanent change of station (PCS) and was not cognizant at  that  time
he was also recommending the applicant for reenlistment.   It  appears
that the commander nonselected the applicant for reenlistment based on
her  substandard  record  of  performance  and  not  meeting  military
standards, and we are of the  opinion  that  sufficient  evidence  was
presented to the commander to warrant such a  decision.   Reenlistment
in the Air  Force  is  a  privilege  and  not  a  right.   Only  those
individuals who consistently demonstrate the qualities  necessary  for
continued service are retained.  It is apparent that  the  applicant’s
commander did not believe she demonstrated the appropriate  qualities.
Therefore, absent a strong showing of  an  abuse  of  the  commander’s
discretionary  authority,  we  are  not  inclined  to  substitute  our
judgment for the commander who was closer to events.

      b.  Secondly, the applicant alleged that her commander  did  not
grant her a clear opportunity to respond to  the  proposed  letter  of
reprimand (LOR)/UIF/Control Roster actions because the incident  which
was cited in the recommendation for the action was different from what
was  eventually  entered  into  the  UIF.   The  evidence  of  records
indicates that the applicant received an  LOR  dated  26 Jun 97  as  a
result of a security violation, for which a UIF was  established.   On
1 Jul 97, the applicant provided rebuttals concerning the LOR and UIF,
specifically addressing the matter of the security violation.  We  did
note that the “recommendation” to establish the UIF was  submitted  by
the supervisor directly to the unit commander and was not available to
the applicant for review or rebuttal and did not address the  security
violation.  However, a review of the available evidence indicates that
the matter was raised during subsequent discussions by the applicant’s
superiors and specified in the LOR and UIF, for  which  the  applicant
was given the opportunity to rebut.  No evidence  has  been  presented
which would lead us to believe that the information used  as  a  basis
for the LOR and UIF was erroneous.

      c.  Lastly, the applicant alleged that the commander  improperly
considered false derogatory information when considering her for award
of the AFAM.  We note that there was inaccurate  information  provided
to the commander.  However,  it  appears  that  had  the  mistake  not
occurred, the commander still would have denied awarding the medal  to
the applicant,  based  on  her  poor  duty  performance  and  conduct,
placement on the Control Roster, and denial of  her  reenlistment  and
promotion eligibility.

      d.  In view of the foregoing, and in the  absence  of  clear-cut
evidence to the contrary, we find no  compelling  basis  to  recommend
granting the relief sought in this application.

5.  Notwithstanding the above, the Board was aware that some  mistakes
were made regarding the actions  taken  against  the  applicant.   The
Board did not find the mistakes sufficiently  meritorious  to  warrant
the relief specifically requested  by  the  applicant.   However,  the
Board did note the applicant’s comments concerning the opportunity for
future military service.  Therefore, as a matter of fairness  and  the
applicant’s honorable characterization of service, a majority  of  the
Board is  inclined  to  afford  her  another  opportunity  for  future
military service, if the respective  services  desire  to  enlist  her
based on their needs, by changing her  reenlistment  eligibility  (RE)
code to one requiring a waiver, i.e., RE-3K (Reserved for  use  by  HQ
AFPC or the  Air  Force  Board  for  Correction  of  Military  Records
(AFBCMR) when no other reenlistment eligibility  code  applies  or  is
appropriate).  Accordingly, a majority of the  Board  recommends  that
the applicant’s records be changed as indicated below.

THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT:

The pertinent military records of the  Department  of  the  Air  Force
relating to APPLICANT, be corrected to show that that her Reenlistment
Eligibility  (RE)  Code  issued  in  conjunction  with  her  honorable
discharge on 19 Dec 98 was “3K.”

The following members of the  Board  considered  this  application  in
Executive Session on 26 Sep 00, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

      Mr. Richard A. Peterson, Panel Chair
      Mr. Steven A. Shaw, Member
      Ms. Marilyn Thomas, Member

By  majority  vote,  the  Board  voted  to  correct  the  records,  as
recommended.  Mr. Shaw voted to deny  relief  but  does  not  wish  to
submit a minority report.   The  following  documentary  evidence  was
considered:

     Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 14 Dec 99, w/atchs.
     Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
     Exhibit C.  AFFTC/IG Report of Investigation (withdrawn).
     Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPPAE, dated 25 May 00.
     Exhibit E.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPWB, dated 8 Jun 00, w/atch.
     Exhibit F.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPR, dated 22 Jun 00, w/atch.
     Exhibit G.  Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 5 Jul 00.
     Exhibit H.  Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 28 Jul 00.




                                   RICHARD A. PETERSON
                                   Panel Chair

AFBCMR 00-00208




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 her Reenlistment
Eligibility (RE) Code issued in conjunction with her honorable
discharge on 19 Dec 98 was “3K.”







    JOE G. LINEBERGER

    Director

    Air Force Review Boards Agency