RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  98-02058
                             INDEX CODE: 126.03, 131.00

      XXXXXXXXXX COUNSEL:  None

      XXXXXXXXXX HEARING DESIRED:  Yes



_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

l.    The Letter of Reprimand (LOR), dated 6 December 1995, be removed  from
his record.

2.    The Unfavorable Information  File  (UIF)  Action,  AF  Form  1058,  be
removed from his record.

3.    The Selective Reenlistment Program Consideration, AF Form  418,  dated
8 April 1996, be removed from his record.

4.    The Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) rendered for the  period  1  May
1995 through 30 April 1996, be declared void and removed from his record.

5.     His  promotion  eligibility  for  promotion  cycles  96  and  97   be
reinstated.

6.    He receive  credit  for  active  duty  service  through  high-year-of-
tenure.

7.    He be reimbursed all back pay and allowances.

In the applicant’s rebuttal to the advisory opinions he requests that he  be
promoted to senior master sergeant  (SMSgt),  effective  1 July  1996,  with
promotion sequence number (PSN) (1).

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

Air Force members are required by the equal opportunity program,  to  report
even the slightest suspicion of racial bias.  However, when he  opened  what
he thought could possibly be  racial  discrimination,  he  was  reprimanded,
denied the opportunity to compete for promotion,  denied  reenlistment,  and
given a performance report with the lowest  possible  rating.   This  report
contained in Block VI the statement “falsifying official
statements.”  This is untrue as tips phoned in to the commander’s  hot  line
are not official statements.

In support of the appeal, applicant submits the LOR, dated 6 December  1995,
AF Form 1058, AF Form 418, Feedback Worksheet, and EPRs.

Applicant's complete submission is attached at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force  on  7  March  1975  in  the
grade of airman for a period of four years and  was  progressively  promoted
to the grade of master sergeant on 1 December 1989.

On 6 December 1995, the applicant was given a LOR  by  the  Commander,  63rd
Fighter Squadron, AETC, Luke AFB,  AZ.   The  commander  indicated  that  on
22 October  1995,  he  telephoned  the  commander’s  action  line,   falsely
identified himself  and  falsely  accused  an  officer  and  noncommissioned
officer (NCO) of bigotry.  The applicant acknowledged  receipt  of  the  LOR
and it was filed in his UIF and he was placed on the control roster.

On 8 April  1996  and  7  May  1996,  the  applicant  was  notified  of  his
commander’s recommendation for  nonselection  for  reenlistment  because  he
received a LOR and was placed on the control  roster.   In  accordance  with
AFI 36-2606,  Reenlistment  in  the  United  States  Air  Force,  authorizes
completion of  an  AF  Form  418  only  for  reenlistment  eligible  airmen.
Applicant was already ineligible to reenlist based on control roster  action
effective 3 January 1996 for six months.

On 19 June 1996, the  applicant  applied  for  voluntary  retirement  to  be
effective 1 April 1997.

On  20  June  1996,  the  applicant  was   notified   of   the   commander's
recommendation for selection for reenlistment.

On 31 March 1997, the applicant was released from active  duty  and  retired
in the grade of master sergeant on 1 April 1997.  He served a  total  of  22
years and 24 days of total active military service.

EPR profile since 1990 reflects the following:

      PERIOD ENDING    EVALUATION OF POTENTIAL

            03 Nov 90        4
            30 Oct 91        4
            01 Sep 92        5
            30 Apr 93        5
            30 Apr 94        5
            30 Apr 95        5
      *     30 Apr 96        3 (Rater) (Referral)
                                  1 (Rater’s Rater/Indorser)

*  Contested report.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The  Chief,  Commander’s  Programs   Branch,   AFPC/DPSFC,   reviewed   this
application and  states  that  when  an  enlisted  member  retires,  as  the
applicant has done, the UIF and its contents are destroyed.   They  are  not
in the business of assessing a commander’s  decision-making  authority  when
assigning administrative actions to subordinates.  They  believe  denial  is
appropriate.  The applicant did  not  provide  documentation  substantiating
his believe that his record is in error.

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

The  Chief,  Skills  Management  Branch,  Dir  of  Personnel  Program  Mgmt,
AFPC/DPPAE, reviewed this application  and  states  that  a  review  of  the
applicant’s files indicates it is appropriate to remove the  AF  Forms  418,
Selective Reenlistment Program Consideration, dated 8 April 1996 and  7  May
1996 non-selecting  him  for  reenlistment.   Current  directives  authorize
completion of an AF Form 418 only  for  reenlistment  eligible  airmen.   In
this case, the  applicant  was  already  ineligible  to  reenlist  based  on
control roster action effective 3 January 1996 for  six  months.   As  such,
both AF Forms 418 should be voided and removed from the personnel records.

A complete copy of their evaluation is attached at Exhibit D.

The Chief, Inquiries/AFBCMR Section, Enlisted Promotion &  Mil  Testing  Br,
AFPC/DPPPWB,  reviewed  this  application  and  states  that  the  applicant
received a LOR on 6 December 1995 for falsely accusing an  officer  and  NCO
of bigotry.  On 3 January 1996 he was placed on the control roster  for  the
same offense.  This rendered him  ineligible  for  promotion  in  accordance
with AFI 36-2502, Table 1.1, Rule H for the  96E8  cycle  to  senior  master
sergeant (promotions effective April 1996 - March 1997).  Should the  AFBCMR
remove the control roster he would  normally  be  entitled  to  supplemental
promotion consideration beginning with cycle 96E8 providing he is  otherwise
eligible.  However, assuming his placement on the control roster  is  voided
and he had been selected for promotion for the 96E8 cycle, the fact that  he
received the referral EPR closing 30 April 1996 would have
canceled his  projected  promotion.   If  selected  his  Promotion  Sequence
Number (PSN) would have been incremented 1 July 1996.   Concerning  the  EPR
closing 30 April 1996.  Because the EPR  was  a  referral  with  an  overall
rating of  “1”  this  rendered  him  ineligible  to  be  considered  in  the
promotion process for cycle  97E8  to  senior  master  sergeant  (promotions
effective April 1997 - March 1998).  Should the AFBCMR void  the  report  in
its entirety, or upgrade the overall rating so that it is  not  a  referral,
providing  he  is  otherwise  eligible,  the  applicant  would  normally  be
entitled to supplemental promotion consideration for cycle  97E8.   However,
because he was ineligible and did not take  the  required  USAF  Supervisory
Examination for this cycle, it is not possible to provide  him  supplemental
consideration for this cycle.  If the  applicant  should  be  reinstated  to
active duty and considered for SMSgt for  a  future  cycle  his  test  score
could be applied retroactively for  the  97E8  cycle.   They  defer  to  the
recommendation of AFPC/DPSFC and AFPC/DPPPAB.

A complete copy  of  their  evaluation,  with  attachment,  is  attached  at
Exhibit E.

The Chief, Appeals and SSB Branch, Directorate  of  Personnel  Program  Mgt,
AFPC/DPPPA, reviewed this application and  states  that  the  applicant  has
failed to provide any information/support  from  the  rating  chain  on  the
contested EPR.  In the absence  of  information  from  evaluators,  official
substantiation of error or injustice from  the  Inspector  General  (IG)  or
Social  Actions  is  appropriate,  but  not  provided  in  this  case.   The
applicant has  not  proven  any  of  the  actions  taken  against  him  were
unwarranted (with exception of the AF Form 418  denying  him  reenlistment).
They, therefore, believe the EPR is  an  accurate  assessment  of  his  duty
performance during the  contested  performance  period.   The  applicant  is
attempting to relate  the  ratings  on  the  EPR  to  the  markings  on  the
performance feedback worksheet (PFW).  This is an  inappropriate  comparison
and is inconsistent with the enlisted evaluation system (EES).  The  purpose
of the feedback session is  to  give  the  ratee  direction  and  to  define
performance expectations for the rating period in question.   Feedback  also
provides the ratee the opportunity to  improve  performance,  if  necessary,
before the EPR is written.  The rater who prepares the PFW may use  the  PFW
as an aid in preparing the  EPR  and,  if  applicable,  subsequent  feedback
sessions.  Ratings on the PFW are not an absolute indicator of  EPR  ratings
or potential for serving in a higher grade.  The PFW  acts  as  a  scale  on
where the ratee stands in relation to the performance  expectations  of  the
rater.  A PFW with all items marked “needs little or no  improvement”  means
the ratee is meeting  the  rater’s  standards.   It  does  not  guarantee  a
firewalled EPR.  Also a ratee who performs current duties in an  exceptional
manner could demonstrate only limited potential for the next  higher  grade.
Or, a ratee who still needs to improve in the performance of current  duties
could demonstrate great potential for the next higher grade.  There  is  not
a direct correlation between the markings on the PFW and the ratings  on  an
EPR.  Every exceptional performer does  not  possess  outstanding  promotion
potential and evaluators need to make that clear on  the  EPRs  they  write.
Based on the lack of evidence provided, their recommendation  of  denial  is
appropriate.

A complete copy of their evaluation is attached at Exhibit F.

The  Retirements  Branch,  Directorate  of  Personnel  Program   Management,
AFPC/DPPRR,  reviewed  this  application  and  states  that  no   error   or
injustices occurred in the applicant’s retirement  process.   The  applicant
was properly retired on 1 April 1997 with 22 years, and 24 months of  active
service.

A complete copy  of  their  evaluation,  with  attachment,  is  attached  at
Exhibit G.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant reviewed the advisory opinions and  submits  his  comments  to
each advisory opinion.  In addition he states that he  humbly  requests  the
board  review  the  opinions  and  everywhere  the  author  penned  (falsely
accused), please insert (we have no knowledge  or  evidence  in  this  case.
Our opinion is based solely on the LOR written by  LTC  B---.   In  the  Air
Force when a commander writes something they are never wrong and,  in  their
opinion, can’t even be challenged.  In fact,  no  commander  has  ever  been
wrong.  The complaints of any enlisted member should  be  dismissed  out  of
hand.)  The specific facts are, he  reported,  as  required  by  regulation,
what he perceived to be a possible racial problem.  He was not  required  to
investigate the problem, conduct interviews, or examine  evidence.   He  was
only required to report, even the slightest possibility, that an  Air  Force
member  was   being   racially   discriminated   against.    If   subsequent
investigations, by competent authority, reveal no problem exists, should  he
be punished just for doing his duty?  Although, according to the Air  Force,
reprimand, placing on the control roster,  establishing  a  UIF,  ineligible
for reassignment promotion and reenlistment and forcing them to retire,  are
only “administrative actions” and not punishment or retaliation.  What  does
reprimand mean?  Whether LTC B---’s actions were just or the results  of  an
attempt to hush up a potentially explosive racial discrimination scandal  is
up to the board to decide.  He would do it all again  in  a  heartbeat.   He
loved his job and would have continued to serve his country for as  long  as
he possibly could.  He was unable to reenlist,  denied  the  opportunity  to
compete for promotion, unable to apply for reassignment,  removed  from  his
position  of  great  responsibility  and  assigned  duties  held  by   staff
sergeants in other squadrons, disgraced in  front  of  his  supervisors  and
peers.  If the Board finds LTC B---'s actions to be unjust, the only way  to
correct the injustice would be to
promote him to SMSgt effective 1 July 1996 with PSN (1) and return all  back
pay and allowances.

Applicant's complete response is attached at Exhibit H.

_________________________________________________________________

ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The Staff Judge Advocate, AFPC/JA,  reviewed  this  application  and  states
that official statements include “all documents and statements made  in  the
line of duty.”  Article 107, UCMJ, paragraph  c(1).   It  is  their  opinion
that when an Air Force member makes a phone call to a commander’s hot  line,
one in which he/she has the right to remain anonymous, it certainly  is  not
a statement made in the “line of duty.”  It is an outlet made  available  to
any interested parties who can tell their story without  fear  of  reprisal.
However, if it is later found out that  an  individual  called  such  a  hot
line, and  knowingly  falsely  identified  himself,  and  knowingly  falsely
accused an officer and an NCO of bigotry, then such actions clearly  can  be
punishable in an administrative LOR, which they were here.   Finally,  while
misconduct that serves as the basis for a LOR does not necessarily  have  to
be a violation of an Article in the UCMJ, the commander  made  it  an  issue
here by stating that his actions were in violation  of  Article  134,  which
they clearly were.  Whether or not  the  applicant’s  tip  phoned  into  the
commander’s hot line was an official statement is irrelevant  to  the  issue
before the Board.  He was not accused of making a false  official  statement
in his LOR; rather he was accused of violating  Article  134  of  the  UCMJ,
which he clearly did.  His conduct was to the prejudice and good  order  and
discipline in the armed forces and was also of a nature to  bring  discredit
upon the armed forces.  There was no  error.   Accordingly,  they  recommend
that the application be denied.

A complete copy of their evaluation is attached at Exhibit I.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant reviewed the Air Force evaluation and states that he  did  not
challenge this injustice while he was on active  duty,  due  to  the  simple
fact he was afraid of further retaliation.  When the  commander  is  out  to
get someone, you don't have a chance.  He  had  to  protect  his  retirement
pension.  The SJA clearly shows the Letter of  Reprimand  is  a  punishment.
Speaking succinctly, the commander punished him for reporting racists.

Applicant submitted an additional response stating the Staff Judge  Advocate
has ruled that his rights, included remaining anonymous,  when  he  reported
possible discrimination via the commander’s hot line.   He  will  now  prove
that  LTC  B---  violated  this  right,  when  he  conducted  an   all   out
investigation.  Not to ensure equal opportunity for all,  but  to  find  and
silence.  The Board will find attached, statements from  officers  and  NCOs
in his squadron.  These statements were directed by LTC B---  and  the  63FS
squadron section commander Lt D---.  These officers and  NCOs  were  ordered
to listen to the commanders hot line tape, and  provide  written  statements
about who’s voice it could be.  Whether these  statements  were  coerced  or
not, the whole investigation to find who made the  call  was  improper.   In
the opinion of the Staff Judge Advocate it  violated  his  right  to  remain
anonymous.  All information  acquired  in  the  investigation  to  find  the
caller was improperly obtained.  Since this information is the entire  basis
for the letter of reprimand (LOR) given to him by LTC B---, he requests  the
Board rule the LOR  and  all  sanctions  associated  with  it  are  improper
retaliation.

Applicant's complete responses, with attachments, are  attached  at  Exhibit
K.

_________________________________________________________________

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.   The  applicant’s   numerous
assertions are duly noted.  However, we do  not  find  these  uncorroborated
assertions, in and of themselves, sufficiently persuasive  to  override  the
rationale provided by the Air Force.  Therefore, we agree with the  opinions
and recommendations of the Air Force and adopt their rationale as the  basis
for our conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim  of  an  error
or an injustice.  In view of our  above  findings  and  in  the  absence  of
evidence to  the  contrary,  we  find  no  basis  upon  which  to  recommend
favorable consideration on this application.

4.    Notwithstanding  the  above,  the  Board  notes  that  the  Air  Force
recommends that AF Forms 418, dated 8 April 1996 and 7 May 1996, be  removed
from his records.  Therefore, we recommend his record be  corrected  to  the
extent indicated below.  It should be noted that submission of  these  forms
in no way caused an error or injustice to the applicant.

5.    The applicant's case is adequately documented  and  it  has  not  been
shown that a personal appearance with or  without  counsel  will  materially
add to our understanding of the issue(s) involved.  Therefore,  the  request
for a hearing is not favorably considered.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT:

The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air  Force  relating
to  APPLICANT,  be  corrected  to  show  that  AF   Forms   418,   Selective
Reenlistment Program Consideration, dated 8 April 1996 and 7  May  1996,  be
declared void and removed from his record.

_________________________________________________________________

The following members of the Board considered this application in  Executive
Session on 2 February 2000, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

      XXXXX, Panel Chair
      XXXX, Member
      XXXXXX, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

      Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 20 Jul 98, w/atchs.
      Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
      Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPSFC, dated 13 Nov 98.
      Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/DPPAE, dated 8 Dec 98.
      Exhibit E. Letter, AFPC/DPPPWB, dated 16 Dec 98, w/atchs.
      Exhibit F. Letter, AFPC/DPPPA, dated 5 Jan 99.
      Exhibit G. Letter, AFPC/DPPRR, dated 10 Mar 99.
      Exhibit H. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 22 Mar 99.
      Exhibit I. Applicant’s Response, undated, w/atch.
      Exhibit J. Letter, AFPC/JA, dated 17 Sep 99.
      Exhibit K. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 1 Oct 99.
      Exhibit L. Applicant’s Responses, undated and dated 5 Dec 99,
            w/atchs.




                             XXXXXX
                             Panel Chair


AFBCMR 98-02058




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 XXXXXX, XXXXXX, be corrected to show that the Air Force Forms
418, Selective Reenlistment Program Consideration, dated 8 April 1996 and 7
May 1996, be, and hereby are, declared void and removed from his records.





            XXXXXX
            Director
            Air Force Review Boards Agency