RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  00-01666
            INDEX CODE:  111.01, 126.03,
                                              131.01

            COUNSEL:  NONE


            HEARING DESIRED:  NO


_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

Any  mention  of  a  Letter  of  Admonishment  (LOA)  for  an  alleged
unprofessional relationship be removed from her records, including her
officer performance report (OPR) closing 5 May 99.  Specifically,  she
requests that the first and fifth lines of Section VII be removed  and
the statement in Section VIII, as  well  as  the  related  “nonconcur”
markings, be deleted.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The  past  allegations  of  fraternization   and   an   unprofessional
relationship  were  false.   Therefore,  the  LOA  she  received   and
subsequent reference of the LOA on her 5 May 99 OPR  are  invalid  and
should be voided.

In support of her appeal, the applicant provided  a  counsel’s  brief,
supportive statements, and other documents associated with the  manner
under review.

Applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Information extracted from the Personnel Data System  (PDS)  indicates
that the applicant is currently serving on active duty in the grade of
captain, having been promoted to that grade on 10 Jul 94.   Her  Total
Active Federal Military Service Date (TAFMSD) is 26 Dec 84.

Applicant's Officer Performance Report (OPR) profile follows:

      PERIOD ENDING    EVALUATION

      14 Feb 91              Meets Standards
      15 Dec 92              Meets Standards
      15 Dec 93              Meets Standards
      21 Jul 94              Meets Standards
       5 Feb 95              Meets Standards
       5 Feb 96              Meets Standards
      30 Jun 96              Meets Standards
       1 Jul 96              Training Report
      31 Dec 97              Training Report
       5 May 98              Training Report
  *   5 May 99        Meets Standards (Referral)

* Contested Report.

The applicant was considered for promotion to the grade  of  major  by
the Calendar Year 2000B (CY00B) Central Major Selection  Board,  which
convened on 18 Sep 00.  However, the results of that  board  have  not
been released as of this date.

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

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The Field Operations Branch, AFPC/DPSF, reviewed this application  and
recommended  denial.   DPSF  noted  that  the  applicant's   commander
provided a letter of support to this case.   The  commander  indicated
she issued a letter of counseling (LOC)  to  the  applicant,  not  for
fraternization, but for poor judgment, since by marrying  an  enlisted
member, she  created  the  perception  fraternization  occurred.   The
commander's letter of support also referenced an  LOA  issued  to  the
applicant by the wing commander.  The applicant  received  a  referral
performance report for the period of 6 May 98 through 5 May  99.   The
report became a referral since it referenced the LOA.

According to DPSF, commander and supervisory decision-making authority
is  considered  paramount  when  applying  administrative  actions  to
subordinates.  The LOA and  LOC  were  administered  correctly.   They
support the actions of  the  referral  rater  and  believe  denial  is
appropriate.

A complete copy of the DPSF evaluation is at Exhibit C.

The Office  of  the  Staff  Judge  Advocate,  AFPC/JA,  reviewed  this
application and noted that the applicant stated she met an  Air  Force
enlisted member in Oct 98.   She  sought  counsel  from  her  squadron
commander on 1 Nov 98 because she was “in love with an enlisted  man.”
The commander advised the  applicant  that  she  could  not  pursue  a
romantic relationship with the enlisted member, but marriage was still
an option.  On 20 Nov 98, the applicant and the enlisted  member  were
married.  Three days later the enlisted  member  was  approved  for  a
miscellaneous separation from the Air Force.

According to JA,  the  Commander,  17th  Training  Wing  (17  TRW/CC),
directed an inquiry into possible  fraternization  by  the  applicant.
The inquiry officer completed a report on  25  Nov  98.   The  inquiry
officer found that the applicant and the enlisted member  had  engaged
in an unprofessional relationship before marrying and recommended that
the applicant receive an LOA.  In accordance with this recommendation,
an LOA was served on the  applicant.   On  5  May  99,  the  applicant
received a referral OPR.  The OPR was a referral due to the fact  that
it referenced the LOA.

JA indicated that from a technical standpoint, they agree that the Air
Force did not err by issuing the applicant an LOA or referencing it on
the applicant’s  OPR.   While  they  do  not  believe  the  Air  Force
committed a technical error in taking  administrative  action  against
the applicant, it is arguable whether the  sanction  was  commensurate
with the applicant’s misconduct.   The  evidence  indicated  that  the
applicant acted in good faith in an effort to handle the situation  in
the correct manner.  In JA’s view, relief should  be  granted  if  the
Board believes that the facts in this case sufficiently  mitigate  the
applicant’s misconduct to render the commander’s administrative action
(LOA), and subsequent reference of the LOA in the applicant’s OPR,  an
injustice to the applicant.

A complete copy of the JA evaluation, with attachment, is  at  Exhibit
D.

The Evaluation Programs Branch, AFPC/DPPPE, reviewed this  application
and indicated that based on the information presented, they  recommend
denial of the appeal.  They consider the contested report to be valid.
 However, based on the AFPC/JA review, they defer  to  the  AFBCMR  to
determine if the LOA was an injustice to the applicant.

A complete copy of the DPPPE evaluation is at Exhibit E.

The Military Justice Division, AFLSA/JAJM, reviewed  this  application
and stated that a draft opinion was  prepared  but  additional  review
indicated that the application did  not  involve  a  military  justice
action within their cognizance (Exhibit F).

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Counsel indicated that they believe relief is warranted by  the  facts
of the  case.   Whether  or  not  the  Board  concludes  that  minimal
fraternization took place, it is clear that both  sides  question  the
wisdom of the way this  case  was  handled.   The  reporting  official
admitted in her statement that the reason they went the administrative
route rather than offer an Article 15  or  court-martial  was  because
they did not have the evidence.  Both sides agree that  the  applicant
acted in good faith, and her record shows that she is  an  outstanding
and sincere officer.  Granting relief is the right thing to do in this
case.

Counsel complete response is 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.   Having  carefully  reviewed  this
application, we agree with AFPC/JA that  the  evidence  indicates  the
applicant acted in good faith in an effort to handle the situation  in
a correct manner.  We further believe that the facts and circumstances
of this case  sufficiently  mitigate  the  applicant’s  misconduct  to
render the LOA and subsequent reference to the LOA  in  the  contested
OPR an injustice to the applicant.  Accordingly, we recommend that the
applicant’s records be corrected as indicated  below.   In  our  view,
this affords the applicant proper and fitting relief.

_________________________________________________________________

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 Company Grade Officer Performance Report (OPR),  AF Form
707B, rendered for the period 6 May 98 through 5 May 99, be amended by
deleting the first and fifth lines in Section  VII  (Additional  Rater
Overall Assessment); changing Section VII to read “Concur” rather than
“Nonconcur”; and, deleting the comments in Section VIII (Reviewer).

      b.  Any and all other documents and references pertaining to the
Letter of Admonishment issued by 17 TRW/CC on 5 Jan  99,  be  declared
void and removed from her records.

It is further recommended that if she is not selected for promotion to
the grade of major by the Calendar Year 2000B  (CY00B)  Central  Major
Selection Board, which convened on 18 Sep 00, she  be  considered  for
promotion to the grade of major by Special Selection  Boards  for  the
CY00B Central Major Selection Board, and  any  subsequent  boards  for
which the OPR closing 5 May 99 was a matter of record.

_________________________________________________________________

The following members of the  Board  considered  this  application  in
Executive Session on 9 Nov 00, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

      Mr. Richard A. Peterson, Panel Chair
      Mr. George Franklin, Member
      Mr. Jackson A. Hauslein, Member

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

     Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 31 May 00, w/atchs.
     Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
     Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPSF, dated 17 Jul 00.
     Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/JA, dated 8 Sep 00, w/atch.
     Exhibit E.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPE, dated 13 Sep 00.
     Exhibit F.  Letter, AFLSA/JAJM, dated 14 Sep 00.
     Exhibit G.  Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 5 Oct 00.
     Exhibit H.  Letter, counsel, dated 29 Oct 00, w/atchs.




                                   RICHARD A. PETERSON
                                   Panel Chair



AFBCMR 00-01666




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:

            a.  The Company Grade Officer Performance Report (OPR),
AF Form 707B, rendered for the period 6 May 98 through 5 May 99, be
amended by deleting the first and fifth lines in Section VII
(Additional Rater Overall Assessment); changing Section VII to read
“Concur” rather than “Nonconcur”; and, deleting the comments in
Section VIII (Reviewer).

            b.  Any and all other documents and references pertaining
to the Letter of Admonishment issued by 17 TRW/CC on 5 Jan 99, be, and
hereby are, declared void and removed from her records.

      It is further directed that if she is not selected for promotion
to the grade of major by the Calendar Year 2000B (CY00B) Central Major
Selection Board, which convened on 18 Sep 00, she be considered for
promotion to the grade of major by Special Selection Boards for the
CY00B Central Major Selection Board, and any subsequent boards for
which the OPR closing 5 May 99 was a matter of record.





    JOE G. LINEBERGER

    Director

    Air Force Review Boards Agency